Rosicrucian Order, AMORC vs. 
Gary L. Stewart

 
June 1999 Letters from AMORC via Email, in response to an inquiry regarding the 1990 Events: 

Note:  Not one word has been changed in the AMORC Webmaster letter or elsewhere on this web site from original quoted documentation; quotation punctuation, etc. added for clarity of presentation.  The name of the inquirer has not been released for the sake of privacy to the individual.

Click for Items Below (Same Page)
1.  Letters from AMORC Webmaster to Inquirer
2.  AMORC 1/99 Published Article RE: "Duality of Imperatorship", etc.
3.  Imperator Stewart's Comments on "with prejudice" and the Mutual Release.

_________________

"From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@amorc.org>"

"At 11:00  6/23/99, Webmaster Wrote:

"Dear [Inquirer],

"Thank you for your inquiry.  In answer to your question, there is no internal conflict within the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC regarding its leadership.  The courts ruled in favor of AMORC, thus ending the issue many years ago. 
1) [Ref./Back To:  News Clipping 11/20/90]  2) [Ref./Back To: GLS Interview, RE Summary Judgment]

"Best regards,
"Webmaster, AMORC

_________________

"At 07:11 PM 6/23/99,  [Inquirer] Wrote:

"Dear Webmaster:

"Thank you for your response.  You indicate that the courts ruled in favor of AMORC, however the information listed at the web site that I furnished you indicates that the case was dismissed by the court with prejudice against AMORC.  Can you or others assist me in resolving this discrepancy."

[Signed, Inquirer]

_________________

"At 21:01 6/28/99, Webmaster Wrote:

"Dear [Inquirer],

"The court made a number of decisions in AMORC's favor, including the question of its leadership. After AMORC had recovered as much as it could reasonably hope for through
the courts and decided not to pursue the suit any further, it as dismissed with prejudice.  [Ref./Back To:  All the 1993 Negotiations Correspondence]  The phrase 'against AMORC' was apparently added by the people responsible for the website you referred to-- it was not stated that way by the court. [Ref./Back To: GLS Interview RE Dismissal]

"The legal phrases 'without prejudice' and 'with prejudice' are sometimes misunderstood by the layman. in the field of Law, 'without prejudice' is an opinion without just grounds or without sufficient knowledge. A ruling 'with prejudice' is a ruling with just grounds or with sufficient knowledge.

"Therefore, the ruling 'with prejudice' is a favorable one to AMORC. In layman's language, the judge saw and heard so much evidence supporting AMORC's position, he became prejudiced in AMORC's favor. His ruling was without doubt, so to speak. [Return to GLS Comments]

"Although the court records themselves are a matter of public record, there is no way for the casual reader to know whether those documents have been presented accurately or  completely on the web site you referred to, or whether other statements on that web site are facts,  half-truths, distortions, or complete falsehoods. The addition of the phrase 'against AMORC' is just one example. 

"The information below is a copy of an article published in one of our magazines that may help clarify the matter of AMORC's leadership. Beyond this, we will not be engaging in further exchanges about this matter, because it was all settled by the courts several years ago.There has been so much misinformation propagated about AMORC, 
[Refs.:  1) AMORC Misinformation and 2) Time Line 3) 1/99 AMORC Forum Article 4) Summer '92 RC Digest Article]that if we were to respond and explain every time someone circulated a new rumor, we would have little time for anything else. We hope you understand, and we appreciate your interest in the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC.

"Best regards,
"Webmaster, AMORC"

_________________

Following Below Correspondent Comments is the unedited, above referenced, 1/99 AMORC magazine article provided by the AMORC Webmaster in the same email message:

Note:  A Correspondent wrote to inform us that it was published in the January issue of the Rosicrucian Forum, 1999 No. 1, Vol. 69. No.1 (even though the Copyright indicated with the emailing of the article by the AMORC Webmaster indicates is as below, "1998").

The Correspondent has stated with regard to this article:
When I read it, I couldn't believe they would publish
such outright misinformation!  Worst of all the following:

"Ralph M. Lewis served as Imperator until his transition in 1987. Because both he and his father remained in office until transition, many members understandably assume that the office of Imperator is a lifetime appointment; however, this is not the case." 1) [Ref.: AMORC Constitution in effect until New AMORC Articles, Inc. filed on 4/23/90]  2)  [Ref.:  New AMORC Articles of Inc.]  3)  [Go To: Referenced 1/99 Article Below]

Wonder if the person writing the article ever read the SGL Constitution before they trashed it -- which stated the Imperator's appointment was for life -- or earlier articles published in the R.C. Forums in the 1930's 40"s by both H. Spencer and Ralph Lewis stating explicitly that the Imperator was installed for life, etc.!  [End of Comments by Correspondent]

THE ARTICLE:

How Does a Person Become Imperator?
Published in an AMORC Magazine 
(Name of Publication Not Provided to the Inquirer)

A Soror asks, "When the first Imperator of the present cycle, H. Spencer Lewis, passed through transition, his son, Ralph M. Lewis, succeeded him as Imperator and also held this office until his own transition. Does this mean the office is a lifetime appointment, like the Pope? And is it passed down within members of the Lewis family? If not, how does a person become Imperator of the Order?"

(Note: For purposes of this article, the Imperator is referred to as "he" because the current Imperator is male. However, there is no requirement that the Imperator be a man.)

The office of Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC encompasses a dual function, both doctrinal and administrative. In his doctrinal role, the Imperator is responsible for the content of the Order's monographs, rituals, etc., and serves as spiritual head of the organization. In his administrative role, he functions as President of the legal corporation, the Supreme Grand Lodge of A.M.O.R.C., Inc.

The Rosicrucian teachings encompass not only spiritual laws, but also practical principles to be applied in everyday life.  In order to fulfill both the spiritual and the mundane aspects of his responsibilities, the Imperator must be proficient in both aspects of the Order's teachings; thus the two roles are inseparable. The Imperator is not simply a spiritual leader, nor is he simply an executive -- he is both. He is responsible for preserving and perpetuating the Rosicrucian tradition on the esoteric level, as well as ensuring the soundness of the outer organization that is the vehicle for the transmission of this esoteric knowledge.

The worldwide Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, is administered by a Board of Directors that includes the Imperator, the Grand Masters of the Order's various jurisdictions, and two additional Directors. Each member of the Board, including the Imperator, is elected to a five-year renewable term of office. Like the Imperator, the other Board members also serve in a dual role. In their administrative role, they handle the various legal affairs of the corporation. In their doctrinal role, they comprise the Supreme Council of the Order. In addition, if there is ever a question of unacceptable performance by a high-ranking officer, the Supreme Council functions as the Supreme Tribunal to resolve the matter. While it is extremely rare for the Council to act as Tribunal, it has been necessary on occasion.

The Imperator of the Order is nominated and elected to office by vote of this Board of Directors/Supreme Council. This is the only way a person can become Imperator of the  Rosicrucian Order, AMORC. The office is not passed on through a bloodline or other lineage, nor can an Imperator simply appoint a successor, although his recommendations may be taken into consideration. Because of this safeguard, the combined wisdom of the Supreme Council is brought to bear in the selection of an Imperator, and the future of the Order is not placed in the hands of any single individual.

In 1939, H. Spencer Lewis, first Imperator in the current cycle of the Order's activity, passed through transition. His son, Ralph M. Lewis, was elected by the Board of Directors/Supreme Council as his successor. Even though Ralph M. Lewis had worked closely with his father for many years, and H. Spencer Lewis had strongly recommended to the Board/Council that his son succeed him, Ralph M. Lewis could not have become Imperator without the vote of the Board/Council. In other words, a person cannot simply declare himself Imperator, even if he believes his predecessor would have wanted it that way.

Over the years, Ralph M. Lewis mentored a number of promising members in hopes that one of them would eventually prove to be a suitable candidate for the Order's highest office. However, none of them inspired his confidence to the point of receiving his unqualified endorsement for the position. In the end, he chose not to make a recommendation to the Board/Council regarding a successor, trusting them to use their own judgment.

Ralph M. Lewis served as Imperator until his transition in 1987. *Because both he and his father remained in office until transition, many members understandably assume that the office of Imperator is a lifetime appointment; however, this is not the case. During Ralph M. Lewis' administration, the Board/Council specified that the Imperator's term of office is a five-year renewable term, and that the Imperator serves at the pleasure of the Board.  *[Note:  The above statement is totally incorrect.  Art. V, Sec. 4 of the Constitution of the Supreme Grand Lodge dated Nov. 1986 specifically states in the first sentence, "The Imperator shall hold office for life."  We insert this here so that the reader will become aware of the misinformation that is being released by AMORC. This is not a commentary, but is a matter of FACT.  See AMORC SGL Constitution here on this web site.]  This resolution was voted on,  approved, and signed by the entire Board of Directors/Supreme Council, and it is still in effect.

The office of the Imperator carries heavy responsibilities, both spiritual and mundane, and few individuals are able to meet the challenge. As long as the Imperator performs his duties conscientiously, the Board/Council will normally vote to renew his term of office at the end of each five-year term. However, if the Board/Council members ever lose confidence in the Imperator's ability to fulfill the doctrinal and administrative responsibilities of his office, they have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to remove him and select a new Imperator. If this happens, the former Imperator no longer has any authority, either doctrinal or administrative.

Following Ralph M. Lewis' transition in 1987, Gary L. Stewart was elected to the office of Imperator by the Board of Directors/Supreme Council. In 1990, after careful consideration, the Board/Council removed him from office following a vote of "no confidence", and elected Christian Bernard as the new Imperator.

The authority of the Imperator, both esoteric and mundane, always rests in the office, not in the individual. In other words, a person cannot become Imperator, in either a doctrinal or administrative sense, until the Board/Council votes him into office; and he cannot continue to be Imperator, in either a doctrinal or administrative sense, once the Board/Council has removed him from office. This is one of the important aracteristics of the Order that sets it apart from cults. A cult is usually presided over by a charismatic leader, and the  members of the cult are his or her followers. Wherever the leader goes, the followers go. This is not the case with the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC. Although the Imperator is responsible for the spiritual and administrative leadership of the organization, the members of the Order are not followers" of the person who serves as Imperator. Officers at all levels of the organization may come and go, but the Order continues, and a member's loyalty is to the organization and its purpose, not to any individual.

When a member is appointed to a position of responsibility within the Order, he or she may be entrusted with certain assets of the Order. They understand that when they leave office, these assets are to be passed on to their successor. For example, the Master of a Lodge knows that the Lodge's bank account, documents, library, accoutrements, etc. are not his or her personal property. These things cannot be given away to someone else, nor taken with them when they leave, as these items always remain the property of the Order. The same holds true for a Regional Monitor, Grand Councilor, Board Director, Grand Master, or Imperator. Unlike a cult leader, the Imperator does not treat the Order's assets as personal property.

If it becomes evident that a person is not suitable for a particular office, in most cases he or she will step down gracefully when asked to do so and will continue to serve the Order in other capacities. However, on rare occasions, such an individual may become embittered and leave the Order
entirely, and attempt to inflict damage on the Order because their personal ambitions have been frustrated. He or she may even gather a small band of followers and create a separate group, declaring himself or herself undisputed leader for life. Such a person may even call the group "rosicrucian" and attempt to project an air of legitimacy by citing his or her former association with AMORC.

The word "rosicrucian" has been in use for hundreds of years, and there are several groups that call themselves "rosicrucian," even though they are not affiliated in any way with the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC. This is possible because the generic word "rosicrucian" is in the public domain and cannot be trademarked. Therefore, anyone can use the word in any way they wish -- as the name of an organization, a restaurant, a car wash, or anything else. There is only one "Rosicrucian Order," and it is distinguished from other organizations by the acronym "AMORC," which stands for "Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis." The word "AMORC" and the phrase "Rosicrucian Order, AMORC" are legally protected trademarks, and no other group can use them in its name. Nor can they legitimately claim an affiliation with AMORC or its past Imperators H. Spencer Lewis and Ralph M. Lewis.

The word 'imperator' is also in the public domain and cannot be trademarked. Therefore, if any person wishes to call himself or herself an 'imperator,' or even a 'rosicrucian imperator,' he or she is legally free to do so. However, he or she is not, and cannot legally claim to be, the Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC. That title applies only to the person elected and retained by the Board of Directors/Supreme Council of the Order.

Copyright 1998 Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC, Inc. 
(WAS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED IN JAN. 1999)

_________________

Following are comments by Imperator Gary L. Stewart in response to references Linda Santucci had made privately concerning the above:

At 08:22 6/30/99, Linda wrote:

Linda:
... The phrase from our Introduction page "dismissed with prejudice against AMORC" stands as it is.   For verification, see again the document of Dismissal on the web site - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/2413/dismissal.htm

Imperator Stewart:
Naturally, the phrase "against" or "for" any particular party doesn't exist in the legal terminology.  It was added on as an explanation to people as to what the terminology means.  I believe AMORC did a similar type of explanation once
or twice as well.

Linda:
However, Gary Stewart had agreed by letter [Ref.: Release agreement], also on the site, that he would drop his own cross-complaint--even though it is not the issue in the formal Dismissal paper.
KK Ltr:  http://www.geocities/Athens/Atlantis/2413/8293mutualrel.htm
Final:  http://www.geocities/Athens/Atlantis/2413/8693release.htm

Imperator Stewart:
I decided to drop my case against AMORC long before AMORC even dreamed about settling out of court (I instructed that the case be dismissed in October, 1991 but it wasn't until Jan. 1992 that it was dismissed).  I did so because I had neither an attorney who could pursue such a case nor did I have the funds necessary.  Also, I felt that pursuing the suit would detract from the more important issues.  Be that as it may, I instructed my attorney to simply dismiss the case which he did.  There was no letter involved from myself. 

At any rate, on May 15, 1992, Kristie Knutsen circulated a letter which states:  "... You will recall that after Mr. Stewart was removed from office, he filed a lawsuit against the Rosicrucian Order for $31.4 million.  In March [1992], we moved to have Mr. Stewart's lawsuit dismissed.  Mr. Stewart agreed to that dismissal without contest.  He also agreed to reimburse the Order for the expenses we incurred in responding to his suit. The dismissal of Mr. Stewart's cross suit was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara county with prejudice -- meaning that Mr. Stewart may never bring such a suit or raise such questions again ..."

For what it is worth, AMORC never moved to have my suit dismissed as it was already dismissed at least two months before they said they made such a motion.  Also, I never agreed to reimburse AMORC.  It is true that my suit was dismissed with prejudice.

As to the with or without prejudice issue, in May, 1993 when AMORC initially approached me for settlement out of court, the initial Mutual Release document they proposed stated they wanted a release without prejudice.  I disagreed with that as it would've been a release of AMORC's complaint in AMORC's favor.  I responded and said I wanted a release with prejudice.  On June 23rd, 1993 Karen Peteros, the  AMORC attorney who was negotiating the settlement, wrote to me and stated:  "I have re-viewed the dismissal of your cross-complaint; it was 'without prejudice.'  If you want a 'with prejudice' dismissal, we can do an exchange."

I responded on June 29 by saying:  "The issue about my filing a "request for dismissal with prejudice" of my cross-complaint is moot.  My cross-complaint was dismissed with prejudice.   For your convenience I enclose a copy of the request for dismissal signed on January 7, 1992 by Keith Kline, and endorsed by the Court on that same date.  I also enclose a copy of page 8 of a letter sent by Kristie Knutsen dated May 15, 1992.  I do not understand why they would move to dismiss my cross-complaint in March when it was dismissed in January.  I hope you can appreciate why I am particular about the language used.  I don't want to get into a jousting match with AMORC after the fact."

Well, it's now six years later and in spite of being particular with the language ...

AMORC's attorney responded on July 9th, 1993 and said:  "I write in response to your June 29, 1993 letter.  Thank you for forwarding to me a "Request For Dismissal With Prejudice."  For some reason, a copy of that dismissal did not appear in my file as it should have been."

So, in a nutshell the above probably is more than anyone ever wanted to know about dismissals with prejudice.  In the letter from someone in AMORC [from the Webmaster to Inquirer] where it states:

AMORC Webmaster to Inquirer [See letter above]:
"Therefore, the ruling "with prejudice" is a favorable one to AMORC.  In layman's language, the judge saw and heard so much evidence supporting AMORC's position, he became prejudiced in AMORC's favor.  His ruling was without doubt, so to speak." 

Imperator Stewart:
Well, ummm ... ok.  If they want it to mean that the judge ruled without any doubts in favor of AMORC in their $3.5 million lawsuit against myself, then that must also mean that the judge ruled without doubt in my favor in my $31.4 million dollar suit against AMORC.  So ... where's my $27.9 million???

But, the fact of the matter is, in both matters, the judge didn't really rule on anything because neither case went to court. We settled out of court and all the judge did was to sign his name to the document saying the matter was resolved outside of court by both parties and would never come up in his court again.  I doubt that the judge who processed the release was even familiar with the merits of the case. 

_____________

NOTE:  Legal Definitions Relevant to the Dismissals of the GLS Cross-Complaint (1/92), and the AMORC Complaint (8/93):

With Prejudice - A declaration which dismisses all rights.  A judgment barring the right to bring or maintain an action on the same claim or cause. 

Without Prejudice - A declaration that no rights or privileges of the party concerned are waived or lost.  In a dismissal these words maintain the right to bring a subsequent suit on the same claim.

Ref:  http://www.id.uscourts.gov/terms-wx.htm#sectW

+ + +

This web site is privately owned,  is NOT sponsored by any organization, and is presented for informational purposes only for public educational benefit.  All documentation can be verified by the court and state records, and at the sources, as unaltered truth.

Text Links:
Back:  To Introduction
New AMORC -  AMORC Articles of Incorporation
Q&A: Lawsuit  - Interview with Imperator Gary L. Stewart,
         Part 1, Reorganization 1990 Events
Q&A: Other - Interview with Imperator Gary L. Stewart, 
  Part 2 - 108-Year Cycle Examined, 
                        Other Organizational Items

Portuguese Speaking Persons: There is one document in Portuguese on this site:  It is the Imperator's letter of 1993, translated from the English letter, also on this site from the 
Page 3 Ref. Documents page.  Click:  Portuguese letter.