CHAPTER VII—BALLYHOOING PROPAGANDA—SHOW-WINDOW

DRESSING—-BIG BLUFFING—-CHALLENGING TO PUBLIC DEBATE AS A FIRE ESCAPE FROM THE BURNING TRUTH.
All reproductions herein are printed with plates made from original documents and each is a fac-simile thereof.
With this general explanation of the contents of this book we present our answer to Mr. Lewis and his so-called White Book D.
36
ss eh cS CHAPTER ONE 2&5
Ce CER BDEER PDE MBER DER DCE POS ND CRAPO CR AZ GPK ARO GRK OGRK 90
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY BUGABOO AS A SHIELD FOR AN OCCULT FRAUD
Cunning Stratagem
The Imperator of the Lewis Hierarchy has much to say in “White (?) Book D” and also in a small booklet issued in 1933 under the title of “Guilty”? concerning an alleged conspiracy of certain named parties (hereafter to be dealt with) for the purpose of injuring AMORC and diminishing the Royal Revenues of his Hierarchal Racket. He uses the conspiracy “bugbear” rather cleverly as a protective device to screen and protect his own acts in the operation of a fraudulent device and occult swindle, and skillfully gives it the plausible appearance of being a wicked and criminal combination entered into by revengeful, designing and self-seeking persons to wreck a worthy and noble order—his own racket—and to injure the supporting and paying members thereof —who are, in fact, deluded and unfortunate victims of his beguil- ing deceit. Such is but one of the many clever tricks, skillful ma- neuvers, cunning stratagems and ingenious subterfuges used by this Master of the Black Art of Deception to fool his victims and to keep them fooled. He denies that he practices Black Magic, but deception is one of the vicious forms of Black Magic.’
The Authentic Order fp Conspiracy Against a Spurious, Fraudulent Order
He charges that the official head of the Authentic Rosicrucian Order in America, which he alleges is only a small organization conducted from a small and shabby farmhouse in Pennsylvania,’ is in conspiracy against his spurious, fabricated and fraudulent R. C. Order which he and his son are using as a plausible device for the successful operation of a money-making scheme for the complete
1 See discussion of the Black Art of Deception, Veluwe I, p. 338.
2See Reproduction of Lewis’ exhibit No. 2 and our reply thereto in Chapter III of this book.
39
AN ANSWER TO°LEW TIS) Wisi ee G7) en OC Olea
support and luxurious living of his family, his son’s family and the gratification of his own inordinate desire to be the head of a large organization and to rule it like a mighty Czar, whose most trivial wish is a profound and sacred law—final, if you please—from which there is no appeal and none to gainsay.* The Authentic in conspiracy against the spurious! Think of it! The true and gen- uine in conspiracy against the false traducers and fraudulent user of its Holy Symbols and Sacred Name! Let it be remembered that there can be no wrongful and unlawful conspiracy to tell the truth and that co-operation with others to expose a fraud and to uncover a swindle is not—cannot be—conspiracy. Therefore, Lewis’ charge of conspiracy against us is a dressed-up “bugaboo.’”*
Timely Warning Given
Long before any of Lewis’ former members, whom he says are iniquitous conspirators, discovered that his racket was a fraud- ulent enterprise and a mystifying swindle, and before they entered upon serious and careful investigation thereof, the writer had re- peatedly published in many books, magazines and pamphlets the facts, namely: that AMORC was fabricated by Lewis; that it is a spurious R. C. Order; that it is a delusion and a fraud, and that it is a clever scheme of Lewis to make money and to glorify him- self. Indeed, since shortly after he launched his fraudulent and spurious Rosicrucian Order in 1915 to the present time we have been and still are advising the public and interested parties of the true nature of this fraternal swindle.
Let us examine carefully into this remarkable conspiracy to ex- pose a fraud and to uncover a swindle.
E. E. Thomas, a Conspirator Dr. Thomas had been a leading member of AMORC. Lewis
ordained him as a minister in his Pristine Church’ and also ap- pointed him the Master of Hermes Lodge AMORC of Los An- geles, California, with a thousand or more members. During the latter part of 1930 the Master and many of the members of that
3 This is discussed at length in Chapter VI of this Book. 4 See our statement concerning this alleged conspiracy, Volume I, pp. 277-278. 5 See fac-simile reproduction No. 21, Volume I, p. 282.
40
feeiely “PAMPHLET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
lodge discovered the true nature of the Lewis Hierarchy and its so-called R. C. Order. Dr. Thomas led a revolt of the members which disorganized that body, probably the largest subordinate lodge that has existed since the launching of this mystic enterprise mageiracernal traud in 1915.
Lewis brought an action against Thomas in the Superior Court of Los Angeles county, entitled the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis vs. E. E. Thomas, praying for damages and an injunction. ‘The case was tried on January 5, 1931. On cross- examination, Lewis was forced to make so many damaging admis- - “ions and the examination was developing the truth so fast, it got so hot for Lewis that he dismissed the action and ran for cover.® Dr. Thomas continued his investigation. He made inquiry of us. We told him the truth about this spurious order and swindling scheme. We co-operated with him in his investigation. In turn he assisted us and supplied us with much evidence of the truth of our charges against Lewis and his racket. Certainly—most cer- tainly—that was not conspiracy.
Miss Myrtle Crane, Another Conspirator
Miss Crane had been a member of the Lewis organization. She was deceived, misled and induced, along with many other members, to sail in February, 1929, with Lewis and other officials of AMORC on a Mystic Excursion into Egypt to receive a Cosmic Initiation, for a substantial price paid to Lewis, in an ancient R. C. Temple of the 'Land of the Pharaohs and the Ancient Priesthood. She discovered the hoax; to her it was no joke. On returning, she resigned and began a careful, thorough and painstaking inves- tigation of this spurious and fraudulent order. For more than two years she worked diligently, ascertained the truth and collected a large amount of evidence, documentary and otherwise, to estab- lish the fact that AMORC as operated by Lewis & Son was a fraudulent device. In August, 1931, she filed a complaint with the Post Office Department at Washington, consisting of about 135 closely typewritten pages, charging Lewis & Son with the fraudulent use of the mails and also filed a large suitcase full of
6 Lewis says he has been successful with all his many lawsuits. This is one in which he admitted disastrous defeat. See Chapter III of this Book for further discussion of his lawsuits.
oA
AN ANSWER TO°LEWIS2 WHITE (2?) BOOK pe
documents and evidence to support her charges. But this mystify-. ing swindle was too mystifying to the Post Ofice Department, and nothing was done about it, except that which Lewis did to forestall it and to prevent a genuine investigation and proper action in con- nection therewith.
During her investigation, Miss Crane got in touch with us. We also advised her of the truth about the Lewis Hierarchy of fraud, and furnished her with such documents as she requested. In no proper sense or meaning of the term was there a conspiracy be- tween Miss Crane and ourselves—nor between she and the many individuals who assisted her and supplied much of the evidence to support her charges. It is not conspiracy to help another expose a fraud.
George L. Smith, an Arch-Conspirator Mr. Smith also had been a member of AMORC. He, too,
discovered that it was a fraudulent scheme and a fraternal racket of the Lewises. He set out to make a full investigation and to get at the facts, which he accomplished to a high degree of excel- lence. He carried on an extensive and voluminous correspondence with everyone whom he thought might give him any desired infor- mation. He also wrote us. We also gave him such facts and supplied him with such documents and proof as he requested. Aiding him in his laudable and praiseworthy undertaking was not conspiracy. |
Smith’s “Rotter” Letter
On March 25, 1932, Smith wrote Lewis a severe letter in which he addressed him as “You Rotter” and charged him with lying, stealing material from others, and fraudulent practices. Smith - published the letter. It was too much for Lewis. He claimed that he had been criminally libeled. However, he did not file his criminal complaint against Smith in the usual manner, nor in the county where Smith resided. As usual, he resorted to scheming trickery and clever maneuvering, thereby seeking and obtaining every unfair advantage. It was his idea and purpose to convict Smith and vindicate himself, regardless of the truth of Smith’s charges or the merits of the case. To accomplish this end, he
a2
Soule) sPAMPHLET. AND CONSPIRACY. BUGBEAR
arranged to have his own attorney appointed as a Special District Attorney of Santa Clara County, California—the County of his residence. He then arranged, through his own attorney, to have a complaint of Criminal Libel filed against Smith in San Jose (Lewis’ home), many miles from Smith’s home, charging him with criminally libeling Lewis. Under this complaint Lewis’ attorney, acting under color of office and as an official, went in person to Smith’s home in Bakersfield, Kern County, California; had him arrested and with a search warrant made a search of his home, taking all of his correspondence relating to his investigation of Lewis’ Fraternal Racket."
On July 21, 1932, in San Jose—Lewis’ home, where he claims to be well known and highly respected—far from his own home in a city of strangers, Smith was tried on the Criminal Charge of Libeling Lewis. Smith entered a plea of Not Guilty because he said that the charges he had made against Lewis and his Racket were true.
Lewis appeared as the prosecuting witness, testified in his own behalf against Smith and presented his evidence. Smith testified in his own behalf and presented his evidence to show that his charges were true and that he had not libeled Lewis. With Smith at a disadvantage and laboring under many handicaps; with his own attorney prosecuting in a friendly court; with all of Smith’s papers and correspondence in his possession, available as evidence against him, and with every advantage he had taken of Smith he was unable to convict him before a jury in San Jose, composed of his fellow townsmen. After hearing the evidence a majority of the jury believed that the charges were true and refused to convict Smith. Lewis had the criminal action dismissed* and filed a civil action against Smith and Thomas, alleging that they had conspired with others to injure his family enterprise. Later we will discuss the trial of his “‘conspiracy suit,” styled The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis vs. George L. Smith and E. E. Thomas, which was a travesty on Justice, and a fraud upon the Court.
eas 9
7 This correspondence was used in Lewis’ “conspiracy case” against Smith, which
will be discussed later. 8 Another lawsuit Lewis did not win.
43
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE (2), BOOK™ hs
Stanley Daines, a Conspirator
Stanley Daines, of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, also had been a member of AMORC. He, too, “smelt a mouse,” discovered the sophistry of the great Imperator and began an investigation of the far-flung and intricate mystical swindle of the mighty Impe- rator of the Hierarchy of Fraternal Racketeers. Perhaps he was poor, unfortunate, without funds and on relief, as Lewis charges —we do not know—yet he knew that he had been victimized and fleeced by the most expert buccaneer that ever sailed the Mystic Main or operated upon the Occult Deep. He began a correspond- ence with other investigators of the aforesaid frauds. He also made inquiry of us. We also told him the truth about the schemes and practices of the proprietors of this mystical, fraternal enter- prise conducted under the trade-marked name of AMORC and fraudulently represented to be a genuine Rosicrucian Order: ‘To tell him the truth, to assist him and others in exposing the fraud was not conspiracy.
Alfred H. Saunders, the First Conspirator The First Member to Expose the Fraud
It seems, according to Lewis’ own testimony on the subject, that Mr. Saunders was a high Rosicrucian Initiate before Mr. Lewis bestowed his bogus honors upon him and made him Editor in Chief of his magazine in March, 1916. However, it appears that since Saunders was possessed of some knowledge of true Rosicrucianism he soon discovered that Lewis was a clever faker and that AMORC was wholly devoid of everything that savors of Rosi- crucianism, except in name alone. He began to question and failed to praise and bow before the Great High Priest of Fraud and Fabrication. That was a-fatal error. He was promptly éxcom- ~ municated and cast out of the inner Den of Crooked Dealing. No doubt he had been grossly deceived—perhaps he did, in righteous. indignation, swear vengeance and declare his intention to expose Lewis’ fraudulent R. C. fabrication and to declare the truth—the whole truth—in connection therewith. It was the natural thing to do; moreover, it was the right thing to do.
It is too bad that all of the early members of 1915 and 1916, and especially the original “supreme council” that Lewis appointed
44
poi PhY -PAMPHEET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
on All Fools’ Day to elect him “Grand Master General and Im- perator,” did not also expose him and his entire scheme when they discovered that they had been victimized, instead of hiding their humiliation in silence.
Mr. Saunders did not get in touch with us. Evidently he had other and sufficient means of ascertaining the truth about Lewis and his counterfeit Rosicrucianism. Possibly he has collected a “trunkful” of evidence to prove the rascality of the First Dynasty of AMORC. He made no promises and delivered no evidence to us. Therefore, we did not “conspire” with Saunders to tell the truth about Lewis’ fraudulent scheme and fraternal racket.
Mrs. Max Heindel, a Conspiring Rival
On April 21, 1930, Lewis, with arrogance personified, with his own egotism greatly inflated and with exaggerated conceit and con- temptuous vanity, wrote a letter to Mrs. Heindel, peremptorily demanding that she get off the earth and discontinue the use of the word Rosicrucian in connection with her organization—the Rosicrucian Fellowship. We do not recognize the Max Heindel Fellowship as an authentic Rosicrucian Order—nor does it claim authority from the authentic Order. The Fellowship was founded by an able mystic, and, so far as we know, it has never been con- ducted as a fraudulent enterprise and it has not disgraced the Holy ~ Name of the Rose Cross. We went to the defense of Mrs. Hein- del in an article, published in THE INITIATES, July, 1930 (Vol. 3, No. 3, Pages 33 to 55), in which we clearly demonstrated that Lewis was entirely without Rosicrucian authority and that he, a pseudo-Rosicrucian, had been exceedingly presumptuous in writing such a letter to Mrs. Heindel and questioning her right to use a Rosicrucian appellation to describe her organization or Fellowship. If going to the defense of Mrs. Heindel under those circumstances and defending her against the presumptuous attack of a rank pre- tender was conspiracy, then it was benevolent and fraternal conspir- acy, the kind of conspiracy that will put an end to fraternal swindles and racketeering in brotherly love.
Smythe and Pease of Canada Also Conspirators
Messrs. Albert E. S. Smythe and W. B. Pease are members of the Theosophical Society of Canada. They are also the publishers
45
AN ANSWER’ TO LEWIS? WHITEW@ BOOK Rs
of The Canadian Theosophist, in which they publish articles con- taining some rather pertinent facts concerning Lewis and his busi- ness. Hence they became conspirators. They requested copies of our publications, which we gladly forwarded to them with our compliments, the courtesy of a fellow publisher. Is that con- spiracy?
Lewtstonian Conspiracy
Lewistonian conspiracy is a new brand—a special kind of con- spiracy. It is a fiction—a bugbear created by the Imperator of the Lewis Hierarchy and used by him as a strategic smoke-screen to shield and protect his private fraternal racket. According to his special definition and classification, every member, victim, per- son or publisher who investigated his racket or told the truth about his methods or his swindling enterprise is a conspirator. ‘There- fore, the communications passing between his former member- victims in their investigation of his racket; their communications with others and with the Supreme Grand Master of the authentic Rose Cross Order in America, to ascertain the facts, and his action in furnishing them such information as they desired, in communi- cating the truth to them and to others, is the evidence that Lewis offers to prove his conspiracy bugbear. Let us follow through and see how much real virtue there is in his contention. ,
Smith’s Investigation Thorough and Truth-Revealing
When Lewis had his personal attorney acting as a Special Assist- ant District Attorney in a criminal case, under a search warrant, search George L. Smith’s home, he obtained copies of Smith’s correspondence. It was then he realized that Smith had made a very thorough and sweeping investigation and that he had un- earthed the truth concerning his own family racket and fraudulent - enterprise. He knew that Smith had the evidence, or had ascer- tained the means of securing the evidence, to prove the charges he had been making. So he conceived the plan of bringing a civil action against Smith charging him with conspiring with a few of the persons with whom he had corresponded in his truth-searching and fact-finding investigation of his (Lewis’) activities with the hope that he might put an end to such investigations. There had ‘ been altogether too much careful and efficient investigation. It
46
SGUIe TY SPAMPHLET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
must be stopped if he was to save his racket.
He knew that Smith had no funds, that the individuals with whom he proposed to charge a conspiracy live far from California, and that most likely such a suit would not be defended. If the suit was not defended, then his scheme would work without difhf- culty or complications. However, if defended he had other plans, as we shall soon see when the facts and circumstances of that case are considered and understood.
To Use the Courts to Further a Racket
With clever designing and ample funds, he determined to make the Courts an instrument of his deceptive skill and insidious false propaganda, and the Halls of Justice a device in his cunning hands to protect, hide and perpetuate his fraudulent fraternal racket. How well he succeeded in carrying out his purpose and design— how exceedingly effective—how disgracefully he succeeded in over- reaching and practicing his subtle deception and fraud on the Court will appear to your great amazement as we proceed.
is
The Conspiracy Suit
In December, 1932, he caused to be filed in the Superior Court of Kern County, California (Smith’s home County, where the law required it to be filed), the suit of The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, a Corporation, against George L. Smith and E. E. Thomas, which for the sake of brevity we will hereafter refer to as AMORC vs. SMITH, in which he alleges that Smith and Thomas (being the only persons who were actually party defendants) conspired with Alfred Saun- ders, one John Doe Clymer, Myrtle Crane, and Stanley Daines (none of whom were party defendants) to injure the Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC by circulating false and defamatory statements for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff (in reality Lewis and son) of its supporting membership, revenues and prop- erty and thereby to wreck the plaintiff organization.’ In other
words, he charged that Smith had libeled and slandered him and
9 All statements made herein concerning the case of AMORC vs. SMITH are based upon the official printed record of the case on Appeal, herein referred to as Transcript, now pending before the Supreme Court of California.
sell
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITEM@ BOO ge
his business, and, with Thomas, had conspired with others to wreck his business.’
The Truth Is a Complete Defense
We are advised that neither in law nor as a matter of fact can there be an unlawful conspiracy to tell the truth and to expose a fraud or swindle. It matters not how seemingly defamatory a statement may be, it is not slanderous, libelous or unlawful if it be true. The truth is a complete legal answer and there can be no unlawful conspiracy, no libel or slander and no recovery. It is not against the law to tell the truth, to expose frauds and swindles. To do so is the duty of every good citizen.
Pleads the Truth in Justification of His Acts and Statements
Now, Smith had made and published some very serious and ugly statements about Lewis, his-methods and his enterprise, which no doubt were slanderous and libelous, if false. In answer to Lewis’ complaint, he denied that he had conspired with others, and as an affirmative defense and in justification of his charges, said that they were true and set forth facts to show that they were true.
The Affirmative Defense
In his affirmative defense, which consisted of 40 paragraphs and covers 60 pages in the official printed Transcript on Appeal (pages 66 to 106 both inclusive), Smith alleged and charged, in substance, among many other things, that the Plaintiff, the Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC and the Lewis family are one and the same; that it is a family racket; that it is a fraudulent scheme, and that it is a spurious, clandestine Rosicrucian organization used by Lewis as a fraudulent device for his own benefit and the pecuniary profit of himself and family. He alleged the many deceptive methods, means and practices and the various cunning ways and clever arti-
See Chapter VI, in which it is shown that Lewis claims complete proprietorship over AMORC; that it is his private affair and that the paying members have no interest in, no vo‘ce in its management or in the management of its property, and are not members of his so-called Order—only the Lewises and their handy men are members of the “Order.” The paying members constitute the supporting Brotherhood of the Lewis Hierarchy, according to the recent testimony of Lewis.
48
SGU IE Y 7 PAMPHLET AND: CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
fices were used by Lewis to carry on and perpetuate said fraudulent scheme and family racket. He then pleaded the truth of his charges and tendered the truth thereof, as a good and entirely sufficient answer to Lewis’ suit.
Could Not Face the Truth .
Smith’s affirmative answer brought Lewis face to face with the tirurn. Ele could not face the TRUTH. From that time on he began to talk settlement; to scheme to buy his way out and save his face; to secure a judicial approval of his acts and his fraternal racket, notwithstanding that such judicial approval would be with- out justification, and to use the courts as a means for his false and insidious propaganda. How well he succeeded—how infamously well he succeeded—will appear as we proceed.
His own attorney advised against such a scheme. He ignored the advice, hired another attorney, a special attorney, ostensibly as an associate counsel in his suit against Smith; in reality a special attorney to negotiate settlement of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH and to carry out his scheme. As a matter of fact, the ' newly employed attorney carried on the negotiations, made the settlement, carried out and perfected the scheme of Lewis without the consent or knowledge of his regular attorney as will fully appear as we proceed.
Lewis Opened Negotiations
Smith was without funds; it was with great difficulty that he raised sufficient cash to pay the expenses of himself and attorney in connection with the litigation. His then attorney had success- fully represented him in the criminal prosecution, as well as in the then pending case of AMORC vs. SMITH, but he had been unable to pay his fees. It had been agreed between them that a suit would be filed against Lewis for false arrest and malicious prosecution and that his attorney should be paid for his services out of the damages recovered. :
Lewis was aware of this situation. It was an ideal situation from his viewpoint. Indeed, it seemed to be made to his order and it did greatly aid the ultimate success of his scheme. Through his Special Attorney, he opened negotiations with Smith’s said attorney who was favorable to making a settlement. Several
ae
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE
conferences were held with said attorney and Lewis’ plan of settle- ment was outlined to him in a general way and he agreed to rec- ommend it to Smith and urge him to accept.
Most of the details of Lewis’ vicious scheme—hereafter set forth and discussed at length—were carefully concealed from Smith’s said attorney. It is doubtful that he had any idea of the - wicked viciousness of Lewis’ scheme as it developed and was worked out with his aid and co-operation. ‘That Lewis involved him step by step and then took unmerciful and deliberate advantage of him will later appear. He was not a willful culprit in the affair —even though he acted contrary to the wishes of Smith. He entered into the plan of settlement in the beginning and took the first few steps in furtherance of it because he believed that it was best for his client and for himself to settle all matters, take the money and let Lewis have his way. The “few first steps,” how- ever, involved him and made Lewis his Master. Lewis ‘‘out- smarted”’ him, and he fell a victim to his clever scheming.
On March 25, 1933, Smith was called to his attorney’s office in San Jose, and informed that there had been several conferences with Lewis’ attorney; that the Lewises were anxious to avoid any further publicity regarding their activities; that his claim for dam- ages against Lewis and all litigation could be settled if he would consent to the transfer of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH from Kern County (his home) to Santa Clara County (Lewis’ home) ; withdraw his affirmative answer; make default and let Lewis take judgment, as hereinafter set forth, whereupon he would settle Smith’s claim for damages if he would discontinue his attack on the Lewises and AMORC. Smith refused to enter into such an arrangement.
Seeing that Smith would not agree to the plan, his attorney, who resided in San Jose, insisted that it would be too expensive for him to go to Kern County to try the case and that, since Smith could not advance his expenses, it would be best to have it trans- ferred to San Jose, where he could give it his personal attention. Under those circumstances, Smith agreed that it might become necessary to transfer the case to San Jose. He then insisted that, inasmuch as the Lewises were talking settlement and Smith resided some distance from San Jose, Smith should leave all matters in his hands, give him a Power of Attorney and a contract for the
50
Perey sravirPHeeET AND: CONSPIRACY-BUGBEAR
division of any damages he secured or recovered in payment of his fees. .
Smith was anxious that his attorney should receive his fees and was willing for him to take the major portion of any damages he should recover from Lewis in payment for his services. Accord- ingly, he executed a general Power of Attorney, giving his said attorney full power and unlimited authority and also a contract for the major portion of any damages he should recover. _How- ever, upon the condition and with the distinct understanding that, if the case of AMORC vs. SMITH should be transferred to San Jose for trial, it would be tried upon the pleadings as they then stood, including his Special Affirmative Truth-Revealing Answer, and that no amendments would be consented to and no settlement made without his full knowledge and consent. He also advised his said attorney at the time that no settlement would be consented to unless AMORC went out of business, and Lewis paid the dam- ages for false arrest and searching of his home.”
The Scheme in Detail
The master scheme of Lewis to save himself and to secure a judicial sanction of his fraudulent ‘enterprise as it was worked out between his Special Attorney and the then attorney of Smith clearly appears in and from the Official Record of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH, being the printed Transcript on Appeal.
Lewis was willing—yes, anxious—to pay Smith to quit—to pay him well to withdraw his afirmative answer alleging facts and the truth that he could not face, if Smith would do so and also permit him (Lewis) to take an unjustified and spurious judgment sustain- ing the validity of his claims concerning AMORC and justifying his practices. Of course, Lewis could not afford to pay the money as an avowed consideration for the direct settlement of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH and for the withdrawal of that truth- telling answer. No, indeed—it might be found out, the truth become known—the cat would be out of the bag and Lewis would lose all of the benefit of the plausible yet deceptive appearance of judicial sanction and favorable findings.
No, no; that would never do! It must be done indirectly, un-
2 AMORC vs. SMITH, Transcript, pp. 176 to 179. $1
AN ANSWER’‘TO LEWIS WHITE @) BOOKe pe
derhanded and under the cover of clever deception and plausible appearances. The master schemer proposed to pay his way out, and he intended that it should be a sure and safe way. There must appear some reason for paying money to Smith or his attorney, other than the settlement of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH. To settle that case would be an open confession by Lewis that Smith was right and that he was wrong; that would be ruinous. There must be a case of SMITH vs. AMORC to be settled as a pretext and a blind for the settlement of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH that he dare not try on the merits of Smith’s truth- revealing answer. ‘Therefore, although the case to be settled was that of AMORC vs, SMITH, the complete success of his scheme required that Smith sue Lewis and AMORC, to furnish the blind
or screen for Lewis to pay his way out.
The Convenient Camouflage
Now, it appears that Alfred Aram, then acting as the attorney for Lewis and AMORC, prior thereto had written an ugly letter about Smith to John Wisher, Grand Secretary of the Masonic bodies of California. ‘This was a convenient makeshift and dis- guise—a real opportunity—so in accordance with and in further- ance of the cleverly worked out deceptive plan to give the plausible appearance of truth to Lewis’ wicked scheme, the then attorney for Smith, without his knowledge, on May 16, 1933, verified and filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County at San Jose, California, a libel suit—the subterfuge suit—entitled George L. Smith, plaintiff, vs. the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, H. Spencer Lewis and Alfred Aram, defendants, on a letter that did not constitute a valid cause of action. Aram and Smith are Masons. Aram’s letter to the Grand ~ Secretary was a Masonic communication. It was secret and privi- ledged. We are advised on good authority that the letter was not actionable, and that Smith had no valid cause of action for libel, on that account, against Lewis or AMORC. ‘That is the reason it was used for the subterfuge suit. Smith knew nothing of the Lewis scheme. If he should discover it, get another attorney and prosecute the suit, Lewis could successfully defend it. It was a well-planned and executed scheme. Smith had a good cause of action against Lewis for false arrest and imprisonment on account
oe
“GUILTY” EA ViEHEE AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
of Lewis’ unsuccessful criminal prosecution, but it was not used as the basis of the subterfuge suit, for the reason indicated.
How the Scheme Was Worked Out
With the stage all set and the matter in the hands of the attor- neys, let us see how speedily and effectively Lewis worked out his scheme. The above-mentioned Power of Attorney was dated eviercie25, 1933. On April 24, 1933, an.Order was entered by consent—on the consent of his then attorney—transferring the case from Kern County to Santa Clara County.* The scheme was working and under full headway. On April 28, 1933, Ralph M. Lewis drew the pay-off check on AMORC funds in the sum of $15,000* to settle the case of AMORC vs. SMITH, to save their fraternal racket and to carry out his father’s scheme. The check was drawn eighteen (18) days before the subterfuge libel suit of SMITH vs. AMORC, LEWIS. and ARAM was filed—the suit that was intended to be and was used by Lewis as a blind for his pay-off and as a device to carry out his vicious scheme. The fact that the pay-off check was drawn far in advance of the filing of the subterfuge suit is evidence most convincing and proof sufficient of the purpose and intent of Lewis’ scheme as herein outlined, without the overwhelming additional corroborative proof produced or referred to herein revealing the viciousness of the scheme and the unscrupulous method of its execution.
On May 16, 1933, and after the pay-off check was drawn, Smith’s then attorney filed the subterfuge libel suit, before men- tioned, of SMITH vs. AMORC, LEWIS and ARAM.’ On June 19, 1933, only seven days before the case of AMORC vs. SMITH was tried, Smith’s then attorney agreed without his knowledge that Lewis or AMORC might file an amended complaint, and on the same date an amended complaint was filed. There was no sub- stantial difference between the amended and original complaints. It was filed as a clever and tricky means of eliminating Smith’s
3 AMORC vs. SMITH, Transcript, p. 126.
4 As shown by the testimony of Ralph M. Lewis on February 20, 1936, in the U. S. District Court at San Francisco, in the case of Roy W. Smith et al. vs. AMORC et al, Official Reporter’s Transcript Vol. I, pp. 72, 73, 74.
5 AMORC vs. SMITH, Transcript, pp. 179, 180. 8 AMORC vs. SMITH, Transcript, p. 332.
53
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (7) BOOKe De
Special Affirmative T'ruth-Revealing answer which Lewis could not face. On June 22, 1933, only four days before the trial, Smith’s then attorney filed an answer to the amended complaint simply denying the allegations of the same, but LEAVING OUT AND ELIM- INATING ENTIRELY FROM THE PLEADINGS SMITH’S SWORN AFFIRM- ATIVE DEFENSE—THE TRUTH-REVEALING DEFENSE WHICH LEWIS DARE NOT FACE and did not plead the truth of Smith’s charges against Lewis and AMORC as a defense.’ This was done entirely without the knowledge of Smith. He went through the trial, be- lieving that the case had been tried on the pleadings, including his Special Affirmative Defense, as they stood when the case was trans- ferred® to San Jose for trial.
Smith as Well as the Court Was Misled and Overreached
Smith, at all times, had refused to settle the case of AMORC vs. SMITH upon Lewis’ terms, and when he received a small part of the money from his then attorney, ostensibly paid by Lewis in settlement of the case of SMITH vs. AMORC, LEWIS and ARAM, Smith was under the impression that it had nothing to do with the case of AMORC vs. SMITH, but in this he was grossly and sadly in error as he later discovered and as we shall clearly see. Lewis paid Fifteen Thousand Dollars, ostensibly in settlement of the case of SMITH vs. AMORC, LEWIS and ARAM (of this amount, Smith received $4,500 and his then at- torney received for his fees, $10,500); in reality he paid that substantial sum to settle the case of AMORC vs. SMITH; to have Smith’s truth-revealing answer eliminated therefrom; to pre- vent the truth being proven; to prevent the case being tried on its merits or the real facts developed in evidence; to make a farce out of the trial; for an opportunity to desecrate the Temples of Justice and mislead, deceive and: overreach the Court, thereby securing a judicial-approval of his fraudulent scheme and a false finding of facts upon which to base his further insidious propa- ganda, such as his Booklet ‘Guilty,’ wherein he tells of the “bad” conspiracy and his magnificent victory over his rivals and the con- spirators.
7 AMORC vs. SMITH, Transcript, pp. 345 et. seq. 8 AMORC vs. SMITH, Transcript, pp. 181, 182.
54
SGoilhy PAMPHLET AND: CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
On Wednesday, June 21, 1933, Smith received notice that the case of AMORC vs. SMITH would be tried in San Jose the fol- lowing Monday.
The Trial Was a Farce, a Travesty on Justice and a Fraud on the Court
The trial was a rushed and hurried affair, with all procedure agreed to and prearranged by the attorneys to give it the plausible appearance of regular proceedings, so as to hide their secret agree- ments and the real purpose of Lewis’ scheme and his vicious designs from the Court, as well as from Smith.
When the case was called for trial on Monday morning, June 26, 1933, Smith’s said attorney who was also counsel for his co- defendant, E. E. Thomas, announced in open court that he had not been able to notify Thomas and unless the case was dismissed against Thomas he could not go to trial. The Special Attorney for Lewis readily agreed that no judgment should be taken against Thomas and the case proceeded to trial against Smith as the sole and only defendant.
The official printed record of this case now on appeal, which we have before us, shows an unusual, strange, confused and queer procedure. In order that we may understand what took place at and after the trial, and see how cleverly Lewis’ scheme was worked out so as not to advise the Court or Smith of what was actually happening, explanation of the following matters will be helpful:
Smith was defending on the grounds that what he had said and published about Lewis and AMORC was not libel or slander, because it was true. To defend on the grounds of. truth, such defense must be affirmatively and specially pleaded, otherwise no evidence of the truth will be heard by the Court, so our attorneys advise us. Originally, he had filed an affirmative answer pleading the truth as.his defense. ‘This answer was eliminated in the ma- nipulation of the pleadings by the attorneys, as heretofore pointed out. When Smith undertook to testify to the truth of his charges against Lewis, the testimony was objected to by Lewis’ attorney on the grounds that the truth had not been affirmatively pleaded in justification as a defense. ‘The objection was sustained by the Court and no evidence showing the truth of Smith’s charges against Lewis and AMORC was allowed or permitted to be introduced at
55
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS? WHEE (7) 9b O Ola is
the trial. That was important to Lewis—it was the chief induce- ment for the pay-off of Fifteen Thousand Dollars.
Smith's Attorney Made No Defense
Although Smith had made an extensive investigation of Lewis’ activities, had corresponded with many persons to ascertain the facts (which correspondence Lewis made the basis of his conspir- acy charge), he did not know all the facts of his own knowledge and could testify only to the facts within his knowledge. There- fore, it was necessary to have the witnesses present to testify or to take the written depositions of the witnesses who knew the facts of their own knowledge, but no effort was made by his then attor- ney to have witnesses present, to take depositions or otherwise to procure the proper evidence to make a real defense in the case— actually no preparations were made to properly present Smith’s legal defense.
Smith had in his possession, and available, many documents which under proper pleadings could have been introduced into evidence to prove the truth of his charges against Lewis, but be- cause the truth as an issue and defense had been eliminated from the case by the secret agreements of the attorneys in the manner before shown, those documents were not and could not be intro- duced as evidence. No real effort was made by Smith’s then attor- ney to properly present his defense in court. His examination of Smith and the presentation of his defense was a ridiculous farce and his cross-examination of Lewis was weak and perfunctory— just enough to give the appearance to the trial of genuineness.
He instructed Smith, when asked about certain matters, to refuse to answer upon the ground that his reply might incriminate him. Smith followed the instructions, put himself in a ridiculous position and gave Lewis the kind of material needed most for propaganda purposes. Note how he took advantage of it in his Propaganda Booklet ‘Guilty’? purporting to give an account of the trial and
his signal victory which he secured by intrigue at the cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars.
56
BewiieRe se AMPHEERE AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
In the booklet “Guilty” on page seven he says:
a9
. and when questioned as to why they made cer-
Italics ours. tain statements or wrote certain letters or published
Not They but He. certain derogatory comments, the answer was, ‘I refuse to answer because my answer may tend to incriminate me of a felony’...”
The propaganda booklet “Guilty” and the rank misrepresenta- tions set forth therein concerning his “‘victory”’ in this case will be considered later. For the present, let us consider why he made three separate payments of Five Thousand Dollars each at certain times and at different important stages of the progress of this case
of AMORC vs. SMITH.
When and Why Payments Were Made
Lewis claims that he paid the Fifteen Thousand Dollars in set- tlement of the subierfuge suit of SMITH vs. AMORC, LEWIS and ARAM and that the payment in settlement of that suit had nothing to do with this case. If that were true, why did his Special Attorney make three separate payments? The check for the pay- off was drawn to the order of his Special Attorney for Fifteen Thousand Dollars—for the full amount of the pay-off. The man- ner and the time when the payments were made disprove his claim and show conclusively that the payments were made in relation to and in settlement of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH in accord- ance with his own scheme to pay his way out and to purchase a court victory, a judgment and judicial findings of fact to which he was not justly entitled.
Payment of First Installment
Lewis could not face the truth. ‘That was the reason he was paying his way out. He had Smith’s home raided and secured all of his correspondence; therefore, he knew that Smith was in a position to prove the facts. The first major requirement of his vicious plan and wicked scheme was that Smith’s Affirmative An- swer pleading the truth of his charges against Lewis and his fraud- ulent enterprise must be eliminated and Smith put in a position where he could not prove the truth of his charges. On June 22, 1933, Smith’s then attorney, without his knowledge and contrary
57
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE (7) BOOKS De
to his instructions, verified and filed an amended answer which completely eliminated his Affirmative Answer and made it impos- sible for Smith to prove the truth of his charges. Lewis had re- ceived that for which he had bargained. The truth could not be proven. He would not have to face the facts. So on that same day the first installment of Five Thousand Dollars of the Fifteen Thousand Dollars pay-off was paid to Smith’s said attorney for making it impossible for Smith to prove the truth of his charges
against Lewis in the case of AMORC vs. SMITH.?®
Payment of Second Installment
The case, a hurried-up and prearranged affair, was tried on June 26, 1933. Smith was notified scarcely in time to arrange his affairs to attend. Thomas, his co-defendant, was not notified. No witnesses were under the process of the court; that is, no witnesses were summoned to appear. Smith’s said attorney had made no preparation to properly present his defense. ‘The only witnesses that testified were H. Spencer Lewis, one of his attorneys and Smith—and Smith was not permitted to testify to the truth of his charges against Lewis and his racket. If the case had been prop- erly tried upon the merits, under proper pleadings and all the evidence properly introduced, it probably would have taken three or four weeks to try the case. Being an ‘agreed upon,” pre- arranged and perfunctory affair, it was tried in one day.
The second major requirement of Lewis’ master scheme was that he be permitted to have his way at the trial; that he be vindicated and his spurious R. C. Order be adjudged genuine. He introduced such evidence and testified in such manner as he and his attorneys saw fit. Much of the evidence was improperly intro- duced and much evidence was improperly admitted without objec- tion. Lewis had his way. He got that for which he had bargained. Accordingly, on June 29, 1933, the third day after that farcical and perfunctory trial—that was a travesty on justice and a judicial tragedy—the second installment of Five Thousand Dollars of the Fifteen Thousand Dollars pay-off was paid Smith’s said attorney for allowing Lewis to have his way and to get what
9 Time of Filing Amended Answer, Transcript, pp. 343 to 351. Time of Payment First Installment of Pay-Off, Transcript, p. 184.
58
“GUILTY” PAMPHLET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR he wanted in the case of AMORC vs. SMITH.?
Payment of Third Installment
Since he was having his own way—since he was paying for it— since he was experiencing no opposition and it appeared that his scheme was working and so successfully, he decided to take plenty while the ‘“‘taking was good’’—even to the extent of demanding his “pound of flesh.” So, on July 5, 1933, he filed with the Clerk of the Court, without the consent of the Court and without notice to Smith, a paper said to be a Supplemental Complaint? to conform to the proof produced at the trial not covered by the pleadings on which the case was tried. This paper was really filed to make a record and plausible foundation for false findings of fact. On July 14, 1933, the findings of fact and conclusion were presented to the Court and by trickery, as hereafter shown, the judge’s ap- proval of false findings of fact was procured.*
The Court had been overreached, false findings of fact had become a part of the court records and an unjust and wholly un- justifiable judgment had been entered. Lewis got everything he demanded and al/ that he wanted. His vicious scheme had worked out to perfection. He had received all that for which he had bargained in full and rounded measure—but could he keep it— could he prevent exposure and the loss of the advantage he had bought and for which he was paying Fifteen Thousand Dollars? That was the question—that was the rub.
Smith was dissatisfied with the whole proceedings. He was demanding of his said attorney that he appeal the case. He prom- ised Smith to do so, but assured Lewis that there would be no appeal—that he would “stall” Smith off until the time allowed by law for an appeal should have expired. He did exactly that and finally refused to appeal the case, as we shall see.
Lewis took no chances. He intended to be sure—to play safe. Hence he would not make payment in full until the time for an appeal had expired. The time for an appeal did elapse and no appeal had been perfected. Lewis then felt safe and assured that
1Time of Payment, Transcript, p. 181. 2 Time of Filing, Transcript, p. 342. 3 Findings of Fact, Transcript, pp. 351 to 371.
59
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE
his pernicious and vicious scheme had been successful—in fact, a huge success. Accordingly, thereafter on September 28, 1933, the third installment—the final payment of Five Thousand Dollars of the Fifteen Thousand Dollar Pay-off—was paid to Smith’s said attorney, in full, for letting Lewis have his way and get everything he wanted in the case of AMORC vs. SMITH.*
The Upset and Exposure
Does anyone believe—can anybody believe—that the trinity of payments aggregating Fifteen Thousand Dollars were paid to settle the subterfuge case of SMITH vs. AMORC, LEWIS and ARAM? CERTAINLY NoT! It is as plain as the nose on his face that Lewis paid that substantial sum to save his face; to secure false findings of fact, used in his propaganda pamphlet “Guilty” ; to secure judicial approval of his fraudulent methods and judicial sanction of a racket, and that the pay-off was made in the case of AMORC vs. SMITH.
But the best laid plans of men and mice often fail just at the moment when success seems assured. That which Lewis had feared —that which had caused him to take the precaution of. withholding the last payment until he thought himself safe—did happen. Smith did discover the truth, he did hire another attorney and did appeal the case, resulting in the exposure of Lewis’ corrupt and vicious scheme. With this appeal, we will deal further on. For the pres- ent, let us give further consideration to the shocking scheme of Lewis as revealed by the Court Records.
The Insidious Scheme and Disguised Conspiracy Against Justice Is Revealed
The foregoing facts and circumstances, when placed side by side, put together and added up reveal, clearly and beyond question, the insidious scheme and unconscionable plot to conceal the truth, suppress the facts and cause a miscarriage of justice; to secure judicial sanction of a fraud, and to make the Court an innocent agent in entering false findings as the basis for the most insidious propaganda. ‘Those facts and circumstances also reveal, crystal- clear, exactly how the exceedingly clever plot was worked out and
4Time of Payment, Transcript, p. 186.
60
“GUILTY” PAMPHLET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
executed in all of its details. Let us summarize. Let us see if this is not true. Let us show that it is true.
The plan—the plot—could not be worked out so well in Kern County—Smith’s home. The case must be transferred to Santa Clara County—Lewis’ home. This was done and how it was done will be remembered. Smith’s affirmative answer, pleading the truth, must be eliminated and he must be put in a position where it would not be possible for him to prove the truth about Lewis. When this was accomplished, Lewis—keen and ever alert for his own protection—would pay $5,000 to prevent the truth from being proved. ‘This was done in. the very effective manner above de- scribed, and Lewis promptly paid the First Installment of $5,000 as per agreement. He got what he wanted and then he paid for it.
Lewis must have his way at the trial; he must be allowed to secure a judgment establishing the Rosicrucian authenticity of AMORC; he must have a decree establishing and finding that a terrible conspiracy existed and was working desperately and wick- edly to destroy his fraternal racket; he must have judicial approval and sanction of his fraudulent enterprise and occult swindle; he must have all of these things whether just or right, even though they must be secured by the most culpable deception and the rankest fraud on the Court—even though the damnable plot must be carried out in the name of the Law and made perfect in the Halls of Justice. If and when this was done, Lewis would pay another $5,000. The trial came on—the defense attorney made no prepa- ration for the trial. Smith was not permitted to prove the truth about Lewis. Smith was advised by his then attorney to refuse to answer on the grounds that to do so might incriminate him. He followed the advice; put himself at a ridiculous disadvantage to Lewis’s great advantage. Lewis prevailed. He got everything he wanted—all he had bargained for up to that time; so promptly after the trial he paid the Second Installment, another $5,000, as per agreement.
Lewis Took the Pound of Flesh
Having placed Smith’s then attorney where he could not prop- erly represent his client and having rendered him helpless, by in- volving him in the plot and paying him $10,000, Lewis proceeded to take full advantage of the situation in the following manner:
61
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE (?)) BOOK® De
First, through his attorneys, he filed in the clerk’s office, after the trial had ended, a document said to be called a “supplemental com- plaint and amended complaint to conform to proof.” It recited that it was filed by leave of Court granted in open court. The record fails to show that the Court ever granted permission to file it. Although it purported to make allegations that would conform to and be in accord with the proof introduced at the trial of the case, as a matter of fact it did nothing of the kind, but proceeded to allege many new and false matters upon which, and in relation to, no proof was introduced at the trial. This was bold and clever trickery. Under the law, Smith was entitled to have a copy of that supplemental complaint served upon him. No such service was made. He knew nothing about it until much later. His then attorney knew all about it. He knew such a complaint was im- proper and that Lewis had no right to file it. He did nothing about it—did not even protest the injustice and wrong of it all, much less go into Court to protect his client’s interest and have it stricken from the records of the Court as by right he could and should have done. But Lewis had tied his hands—he had involved him in the plot—he had Lewis’ money in his pocket—so what could he do? He did all he could do—nothing! Second, through his attorneys, Lewis caused to be presented to the Court findings of fact, following closely—word for word—almost a replica of the ‘supplemental complaint and amended complaint to conform to proof” wrongfully and improperly filed as before pointed out. These proposed findings of fact were full of errors, misstatements of facts, contained a mass of matter never mentioned in the trial and upon which no evidence or sustaining proof was offered at the trial.
These proposed findings of fact, which were afterwards signed by the Court and officially made a part of the record in the case, were not then served on Smith; he knew nothing at all about them for some time thereafter. A copy was served upon his then attor- ney. Upon the receipt of same he became greatly incensed; he realized that he was being grossly imposed upon—that Lewis was taking full advantage of him, so, in the height of his indignation and on the spur of the moment, he wrote a letter to Lewis’ Special Attorney with whom he had carried on the negotiations of “‘settle- ment.” ‘The letter tells a story all its own; another chapter of this sordid plot. It is the wailing of one who has been victimized,
62
Pol lcChy sPAMPHEET AND CONSPIRACY” BUGBEAR
who had not anticipated—or even dared—to suppose that any ' such unfair advantage would be attempted, much less taken of him; but he had dealt with Lewis, who had involved him in a plot— who had completely disarmed him and who was taking full and awful advantage of him. Shylock was taking his pound of flesh. When he entered into those negotiations, he did not know Lewis —and he did not know that the dice were loaded. When it was too late, he realized his real situation and found it difficult to: reconcile himself to it. ‘The complete contents of his letter to Lewis’ Special Attorney, as shown by the official record of the case on appeal which tells his sad predicament, is verbatim, as follows:
A Telltale Letter
All Italics in This “T have at hand a copy of the Findings of Fact Letter Are Ours. and Conclusions of Law, which I understand are
to be filed in the case therein referred to. I wish Findings Incorrect and to make some very serious objections to the form
Objectionable. and content of these findings before agreeing that they should be filed.
“Never in the brief practice of law which I have
enjoyed have I ever been more surprised and amused
with the content of a purported legal document.
So-Called Findings. These so-called Findings contain statements which
I never heard of, statements which I am positive False Findings were never mentioned in the trial of this case. I Supported by talked to Mr. Mason relative to some of the state- No Proof. ments therein and he agrees with me that there was
absolutely no testimony to back up a number of the statements. The purpose of these findings appear to me to be grossly abused, as it seems to contain a
Purpose of mass of extraneous statements put in for the purpose Propaganda. of subsequent propaganda. I do not see how any {Imposition on judge having heard the case could sign these Find- the Judge. ings as being true and correct.
“Inasmuch as you actively tried the case your
name should appear as an attorney of record on the
top of the pleadings. Beginning on line 31, page 1,
and continuing to line 9, page 2, there is set out a
statement relative to the dismissal of the case against
False Statement E. E. Thomas. I do not remember any stipulation Case Dismissed being entered into, there was some conversation be-
63
AN ANSWER’ TO LEWIS WHITE (7)- BOOKS be
as to Thomas.
Another False Statement Supported by No Proof.
Some More
Propaganda Matter
and False
Statements.
No Basis for
Inaccurate Statements.
AMORC Not
Ancient.
No History of Rosicrucians Past
the Middle Ages.
Another False Statement
Without Proof.
Repetition of
Inaccurate Statements.
tween the attorneys, but as I remember the ultimate action taken was simply a request that the case as to E. E. Thomas be dismissed. Beginning at lines 19 to 32 on page 2, there is a statement alleged to have been made by plaintiff’s attorney’s relative to the ability of George L. Smith to respond in pecu- niary damages. I remember no evidence being pre- sented to the Court of statement made relative to the financial standing of George L. Smith or any of the co-conspirators. These and the above-referred- to statements are undoubtedly incorrect statements, but I do not wish to make any point as to them. At the top of page 3, lines 2, 3 and 4, is another statement without any basis of fact. It says that a mass of correspondence consisting of some one thou- sand letters or copies of letters were presented to and received by the court. This is absolutely erro- neous. “There was only a small handful of letters introduced into evidence. By no stretch of the imagination can this be increased to cover one thou- sand. I see no basis or reason for inserting such an inaccurate statement into the Findings. Under the Findings of Fact at I we have no objection, the same for II; but in III at lines 12 and 13 I remem- ber no statement that the brotherhood came into being in Ancient Egypt; on the contrary, Dr. Lewis under cross-examination said there was no history of the Rosicrucian organization past the Middle Ages, and would not commit himself as I endeavored to do so, saying there was ancient history to his or- ganization, as he well knew that we could introduce any standard encyclopedia to disprove his statement. As to the rest of III I have no objection. The same. for IV. In V we find another statement which is not based on any evidence. At lines 7, 8 and 9 in paragraph V there is a statement that the buildings and equipment represent an investment of over
$400,000. I clearly remember that Dr. Lewis said that it was between $200,000 to $300,000. I fail
to understand why there is such a repetition of these inaccurate statements. ‘The rest of V is satis- factory.
“In paragraph VI there is no evidence to support
64
PeUlbhy “PAMPHEET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
No Supporting Testimony.
No Testimony. So-Called
Conspiracy.
The Findings Should Be Only to Smith and Not to Others Not
Parties.
Smith the Only Defendant.
An Attempt to Cover up Masonic Difficulties.
No Evidence
on Jewels.
No Evidence That Lewis Was Black- balled by Masons.
Taking an Advan- tage of the Court.
the statement therein contained that the Defendant, George L. Smith, together with other parties were given ceremonials, rituals and other confidential in- formation. There is no testimony that Alfred Saunders cr E. E. Thomas were expelled from the order because of conduct unbecoming a member of the order.
“In paragraph VII, there is mo testimony relative to Mrs. Heindel, Albert Smythe or W. P. Pease in any so-called conspiracy. As to the rest of para- graph VII I have no objections.
“In paragraph VIII there is no testimony that the statements made by the other so-called conspir- ators were false and defamatory. The Findings [should] refer only to statements made by George