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.