There are major reasons why I have not addressed any OTO charges in this Epistle. First, as I pointed out already, I have never received anything official in writing to address. In fact, neither did the Tribunal. One of the many people who was concerned with all the shenanigans was Clive Harper in England. On Friday, June 2nd, he emailed me saying, "93 We certainly seem to be living in 'interesting times'. Did Lon or Tony ask for your side of events at all? I raised the point with Bill, but only got a rather vague response about you having had ample opportunity to defend yourself." I replied, "I did talk with Tony but you must realize that I was never official charged with anything. Myself, nor the Tribunal ever received anything in writing from Bill Breeze (my accuser) to verify exactly what I did wrong in his eyes. Therefore Tony & I just chatted about lots of nothing, just catching up on our friendship, ideas and views, while waiting for the charges to arrive. As for Lon & Jim, they never once contacted me or even asked me a single question. I presume they too were waiting for the charges. Of course Bill now has to be vague. But how can he honestly say that I was given ample opportunity to defend myself if no charges were ever filed or nothing was ever received in writing of the exact reasons for the Tribunal? What was I too defend myself of? Vague rumors, innuendoes on a suspension letter or third party comments about what other's thought Bill was pissed about? If so, that's bogus. Fraternally, an accused persons has the undisputed right to a fair trial and to have all the allegations or charges being made against him or her laid out very clearly from A to Z.  It's the accuser's responsibility to produce such. Bill never did and because of such, if he's allowed to get away with it, it sets a dangerous policy fraught with abuse. No one is safe. This whole thing has been a botched job from the very beginning, a comedy of errors and rather than giving me the benefit of the doubt the OTO is simply railroading me. It's kinda sad."

This whole episode of my expulsion was becoming a major embarrassment for the OTO. Everyone was beginning to talk about how I was being railroaded by the Grand Tribunal. The OTO immediately began doing damage control by telling a new version of the events. I've known Bill Breeze for over twenty years and I can say with utmost certainty how amazed I am at how often, when caught in an anomaly, his stories mutate. In some circles he's known as Mr. Slippery When Wet. This is why he rarely puts anything down in writing because he knows and has laughingly joked with me on a few occasions, that such, quote "comes back to haunt you." My personal views on this whole matter is that maybe if he just told the truth right up front he wouldn't have dance so often and wear his shoes out. What Breeze was unaware of is that I was keeping a careful ongoing documentation of the events which clearly showed how the story changed.

As an example, Breeze began telling everyone that my Suspension letter 'officially' listed all my charges and that, contrary to what Tony Iannotti was telling me all along, there was never going to be charges written out from A to Z which would clarify exactly what I had done. It's nice for Breeze to tell me this after the fact. However, since a Grand Tribunal member, namely Tony Iannotti, kept telling me that such charges were in route and that my Suspension letter was not the official charges, I never attempted to address them. Furthermore, remember way back on May 18th I had told Tony, "For the record, I haven't even been given any official 'Charges' yet. I do not know exactly what the OTO is charging me with except vague innuendoes in my suspension letter. How can I even make a defense to the Tribunal?" From day one I was telling Tony that those statements in my suspension letter were so nebulous that any defense could only be construed as being lame. Even he, one of the Grand Tribunal members, agreed.

Since Bill Breeze is now claiming my suspension letter listed the charges that were suppose to be investigated and addressed then I'd like to point out that the Grand Tribunal members themselves only received a copy this letter the day before they made their decision! Is this a fair investigation? After receiving the 'charges' did any member of the Grand Tribunal contact me before coming to their conclusion?  NO.

Breeze also had to comment upon my remarks that I was never officially in communication with the Grand Tribunal. My correspondence between Tony and myself was personal. Even Tony stated such numerous times. If we are now being told that this correspondence constitutes 'official' documents, then either Tony was lying to me all along or, again, Breeze is trying to mutate the facts to cover his railroading me. Tony told me in a phone conversation this is what Breeze was trying to do and said he was being forced to send them some of the emails. On June 8th I sent Tony an email saying, "After careful consideration I would appreciate that our private correspondence between you and I, discussing my suspension/expulsion NOT be given out to Breeze or the OTO. What they are going to do, is put a special header on it and 'spin doctor' it into something it's not in order to convince everyone that the Tribunal was 'officially' in contact with me. Which you know and I know, is a lie. In other words, they're trying to do damage control after the fact, rather than facing their phantoms. Can you give me your Word that you won't send them copies?  I'd appreciate that."    

Tony Iannotti came out to the Bay Area for a work related visit between June 3rd and the 10th. On June 7th he arrived at my house for a visit at 7:25pm. He stayed late and we talked about much. I wish to quote from my diaries of a few things I learned during the evening. Some of which I have already discussed but it'll help clarify as to when I discovered the information. Meaning, on this date.

1. Tony talked with Breeze on Monday [June 5th] who said I was being expelled "this week" and that I could "appeal the decision at the next Areopagus." He is also hoping that I will be "honorable" and not attack or come out revealing data etc & etc until then. However, he hasn't acted honorably nor fraternally since day one. Now, he's expelling me on bogus charges, which even Tony admits and he's saying, please keep quiet for the next eleven months until the next Areopagus when you can appeal! I tend to doubt that I'll do this. I really don't care for my membership all that much at this point. Tony did say that Breeze is quote, "terrified" of what I could do or release. 

2. I found out the copy of my suspension letter & my reply back both arrived at the Tribunal the day before they made up their minds, plus Breeze is saying now my suspension letter is officially "my charges" in order to tell everyone that I "was notified" as was the Tribunal. How bogus.

3. Tony said that Breeze has requested full copies of our correspondence between him and I. What he is trying to do, according to Tony, is to spin our correspondence into something it's not. To imply the Tribunal was actually "investigating." He wants it to become an official Tribunal record to prove that I was in constant communication with the Tribunal and him. He's doing damage control to silence my bitching that I was never given the opportunity of a defense or to explain myself. Tony admitted tonight that our correspondence was private, between friends and was in no way part of the official Tribunal's investigation as Breeze is trying to make it.

4. Tony read the paragraph which Bill Breeze sent to [omitted] on June 5th where he discusses my expulsion etc. He laughed, saying "this is so untrue." I replied. "Lies is more like it." We joked about all the points which were wrong, right down to his opening statement re: Breeze's take on AA issues. We both agreed, he's blatantly lying to cover up the real issue.

The next day, or on June 8th, I sent Tony an email, knowing that the day before was the last time we'd meet. Still, I wanted to address a lot of our conversations. I wrote, "I'll be dropping you brief thoughts from time to time in regards to your visit etc. One thing I'd like to mention is that it became very clear that your optimism, although endearing, is allowing Breeze to know how, why and what I'm thinking. In other words he's able to spin his defense (et story) so that he's coming out smelling like roses. While, in some ways I'm in the dark. The only way I can be kept informed is if my friends let me know what he's saying.

as examples of re-telling the facts:

1. I've always said that I haven't received any 'charges' which I could respond to. He knows this through you and he's now come back with, the letter of suspension contains your charges.

2. I've always maintained that the Tribunal never contacted me in any official capacity, even you have agreed that our correspondence was private, between friends and was in no way part of the official Tribunal's investigation. Breeze is now trying to make it seem otherwise.

In other words, I'm looking over my notes in regards to how he's 'spinning' a story and doing damage control. It's all been at my expense via what I am telling my friends, mostly you and [omitted], who is then talking to him. In other words, he's getting my views' up front. In some ways this is bad legally. It's like telling the prosecutor your defense before you have a trial or a hearing and hoping he'll be fair. Realizing this, I'd like you to be very careful on what you tell Breeze from now on or, let me know what you've told him and carefully jot down actual statements verbatim, which he makes to such, which are known contradictions. If I'm going to make a defense at the next Areopagus this is important."

Days passed and I heard nothing. I received no word from Tony once he returned home. On Friday June 16th I sent Tony a brief email, asking, "I checked my P.O.Box today, still nothing from the OTO. Are you sure Breeze told you that I was being expelled 'immediately'?" He replied two days later saying, "Yes, he meant that week, but I have not heard anything either."

After more careful thoughts in regards to sending Bill Breeze our personal correspondence I sent Tony another email. This was on the 18th. I asked, "Why do you have to send them some of our correspondence?"

I continued saying, "We discussed this while you were here and you said, if you were going to send them anything, you'd send me a full set before sending it to them. To approve the editing. Since they are my words, common decency demands that I should see 'what' is being submitted to Breeze before you send it off. Remember, these were PRIVATE correspondence and the OTO has absolutely no right to them. Especially considering they are going to be used against me as if they are official 'minutes' of a Tribunal. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't care if such goes out or is published but considering the treatment which I've been dealt by the OTO thugs of late I want to see exactly what you're sending so I can 'approve' it. I know this might be harsh but it's only fair. You know and I know, Breeze and the 'spin doctors' are going to use my words to prove one way or the other my guilt. It's totally unfair that they are given access to my words after they've already have found me guilty and are demanding my expulsion. This is nothing more that trying to confirm their decisions after the fact and I'm against it. Again, send me a full set of what you're sending to them and I'll give my OK as to what words of mine you can release to the OTO. I'm not asking, I'm demanding this." Tony replied very graciously, "You said that you did not want your mail sent, so I was not going to send that. But I have to send some of what I wrote to you (the official early mail) to document my participation in the GT process and what you had been told. They are beginning to imply that I never communicated anything to you, because of your reply to them that you had never been contacted. (odd after the meeting description and other stuff wound up on Thelema93-l, but there you are.) I told them at the time that you were referring to no contact prior to the meeting, but they don't think that's true, that you mean through the whole process. Since they seem to be reluctant to ask you directly, it seems the only way to prove that I did contact you. (Of course, it does not prove that you received or read them.)." 

I could only wonder what Tony implied by "official early mail." It wasn't until May 14th that I was notified that the Grand Tribunal had been assembled. In theory, Tony's prior emails to this date should not be considered 'official.' However, in truth, I didn't care what was being sent because anyone with common sense will quickly realize that the OTO is trying to 'verify' its decision of expelling me after they had already made it. In other words, they rushed into making a hasty decision, pissed at Kalil's postings and living up to their threat that if I didn't silence Kalil they wouldn't let me offer a defense or even bother to wait for the charges to arrive from Bill. They can't dispute this fact. Now that I was bitching about all this they are quickly trying to do damage control and explain away their actions by saying I'm lying. Obviously the 'charges' which everyone was waiting for from Breeze are now being 'explained away' by saying, "Oh, no, you got the charges in your suspension letter." But this is contrary to everything the Grand Tribunal told me while it was in existence. As for me never having the opportunity to offer a defense, they're now trying to say that I extended such in my emails back and forth with Tony. But where, anywhere in those emails does it say that these are official and anything other than personal conversations? Even Tony, a Grand Tribunal member, admits this. Furthermore, in those emails I told Tony that I was writing out a draft of my defense in an actual letter but I was waiting till the official charges arrived so I could fine tune my response before sending it to the Grand Tribunal. Tony agreed but warned if Kalil kept talking, I wouldn't be allowed to submit it. Need I point out that this clearly shows my defense letter and my emails to Tony are two different things. The OTO is simply confusing apples with oranges in order to prove its folly and do damage control at my expense. Anyway, Tony did confirmed that he would send me a full set of what he's going to send to Breeze so I could review it very carefully. He did say, "I have hardly touched my home email since I have been back, though I have read more and can tell you (though you probably know already) that the immediate expulsion plan was also argued against by Lynn [Scriven], and she received better attention than I did. I think July 30 is the new date, and they are supposed to re-iterate the original letter, and wait for a response though I think they should also come up (finally) with real specific charges, or your reply is likely to be the same, with good reason."


On Friday June 23rd 2000 I went down to the P.O.Box and found a large registered letter from the Secretary General, Marcus Jungkurth in Berlin. The cover letter continued fostering the myths. Most notable is that it states "Your case was considered an emergency by the Supreme Council. The Agenda for the 2000 e.v. Areopagus meeting was prepared on March 22 and mailed promptly. Your article concerning the Order's ritual appeared on a Swiss website on March 30th." In my suspension letter of May 5th Marcus made a similar statement, saying that my suspension is due to "your quotations from the initiation rituals in your publication 'Red Flame' and the posting of such material to the public website of P.R.Koenig." Here is the stupidity of the OTO's railroading me which shows that none of them are really aware of all the facts and are merely throwing false accusations around which sound good at the moment. First of all, I did not post the entire issue of Red Flame No.7 on Koenig's web site. I posted pgs. xi - xxx and pgs 169 - 182. These dealt primarily with AA issues and U.S. Copyright Laws.

In the package which Marcus sent is a document called The Notification of Our Findings. Not that it matters, but prior to this I only received a copy of the first page. However, page two begins with the actual page references in Red Flame No.7 where the Grand Tribunal says I have violated my Oaths. It is approximately three lines. It is an undisputed fact that this is the first place where I have ever been notified 'where' I am accused of this indiscretion. In truth, this was part of the charges that I was waiting for so that it could be addressed rather than the 'blanket' charge that 'somewhere' in Red Flame I violated my Oaths. All this aside, the pages which are in question are, quote, "specifically pages 35 to 40." THESE PAGES ARE NOT PUBLISH ON KOENIG'S WEB SITE! This is another classic example of the OTO not knowing what the Hell it's talking about and simply trying to come up with charges which look good on paper but have no basis in reality.

What is even sadder is that the rest of this piece, or rather ten pages worth, deals 100% with quoting in depth the postings by Kalil, a member in my AA lineage. If the Grand Tribunal had half a brain it would have buried these accusations. They only serve to prove beyond a shred of a doubt that I am being railroaded on trump up charges being sought long after the Areopagus meeting which was held two months earlier. Furthermore, it proves their threats that if Kalil posted anything again, it would railroad me without me offering my defense or hearing any 'official' charges. Here is Kalil's postings! This is undisputed BUT WHERE IS MY DEFENSE IN THIS PACKAGE? Dah! There isn't any. It only proves that if you hunt long enough, harass people and threaten them over a period of time, you'll find something to hang them with. And they're calling this a Fraternity?

I am not going to address all of the letter. However, at the very end on the last page is a list of questions which are titled Sample Questions Once Proposed by JW. Of course I've never seen these until this letter but if anyone is in doubt about the AA issue being the real truth behind my felonious expulsion I'd like to quote Jim Wasserman's first question.

"How can you reconcile your hostility to the Caliph's version of the relationship between
O.T.O. and AA knowing that the Caliph feels he is the ultimate authority on defining this
relationship for O.T.O. and knowing that the Areopagus has accepted his position as sole
authority to set official O.T.O. policy in regards to AA?"

Furthermore, at the end of his questions Jim Wasserman makes the following statement to Tony Iannotti & Lon DuQuette. "I am too angry to talk to him on the phone right now and don't want to waste the time or money to see him in person. I have a Third Degree Oath not to punch him in the mouth and I take my oaths seriously to the extent that I'm able to live up to them." Let me point out that if someone, supposedly in charge of, quote, "the investigation" (May 5th) portrays such bigotry and pre-determined guilt on some one's behalf, without ever hearing a person's defense or ever receiving 'officially written OTO charges' in regards to the person they're investigation, is there any doubt that said person would not be railroaded? Jim Wasserman, never bothered to call me, email or write me. I won't get into every Oath he has broken but it's far more than he's accusing me of.

Sadly, the cover letter from Marcus Jungkurth is dated June 13th and states that I "have 30 days in which to submit any defense ... which should be received by the Secretary General no later than July 11, 2000 ev." However, it's post marked on the 14th and in addition to not giving me a full month, the letter arrived on June 23rd. This plainly says it took nine days to arrive in California from Germany, which is not bad. But if I'm to guarantee that my defense letter gets in Marcus' hands by the 11th I'd have to ship it at least by the 1st. Hoping, of course, that he checks his mail regularly. This means that I have only one week to make an adequate defense and not a full month as 'graciously' offered me in the cover letter. This will be another 'classic example' later on when the OTO tries to spin a fanciful tale to make itself look good by saying that it offered me plenty of time for a  defense. It sounds good on paper but it's harder to swallow in reality.

Is there any doubt why I was a cynic throughout this period? There has been nothing fair about how the OTO has dealt with me from the beginning. Part of me just doesn't care one way or the other if I remain a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis. The wall between Bill Breeze and myself, now built, will be almost impossible to overcome if I remain within the Order. Yes, he & I have been fighting over AA issues for some time and we disagree adamantly on many points. However, he crossed the planes. Not me. He brought these issues down into the official meeting of a mundane organization. That organization has busily gone about trying to cover up this fact and do damage control by trying to make it seem like my real crime is a breech of OTO Oaths. But that is not what fueled Breeze's four hour talk at the Areopagus. Again, for the record, I am not saying that I am not guilty of certain transgressions against the Order but there was never an attempt to have these worked out amicably for all concerned.


At this point I want to point out that I accept the Hell which I've drawn down upon myself knowing that it has exposed something which has been slowly brewing behind the scenes for many years. It is no secret that Bill Breeze has systematically attempted to eliminate every other OTO or Thelemic organization and retain the undisputed copyrights of Aleister Crowley's estate by suing and attacking everyone. However, he wanted it kept very quiet that his megalomania had been mounting a campaign of slander and attacks on the very threshold of the AA itself. The knowledge that Breeze's AA was now to be considered as the 'only true Order' by the OTO, no others would be accepted as being legitimate, sent shock waves throughout the Thelemic communities world wide. Independent bloodlines, with no 'apostolic succession' back to Aleister Crowley are deemed, and I quote "bogus." Yes, verily, in attempting to expel me it further exposed the fact that Bill Breeze has set upon a program which says that if OTO members want to be invited into the Fifth Degree then they must give up their membership in certain groups which do not advocate his world views. A person must also stop associating with individuals whom he personally deems a threat to his Order. Unless you sell your soul you won't be allowed into Fifth Degree. Of course, once this became public knowledge the OTO spin doctors are quickly trying to deny it. After all, if the man of Earth degrees knew the Truth they might start wondering why should they remain in the Order and pay their dues.

The bottom line is that I knew right from the start that whether it was today or tomorrow, no one could stop the tides of fate that would inevitably try to push Grady McMurtry's AA lineage out of the Ordo Templi Orientis. I accept this and hold no animosity. In Truth, I was marked for death months ago when I first spoke An'el Haqq before the masses. The Grand Tribunal was merely Frater Hymenaeus Beta's three rock throwers who's job it was to do his dirty work and slay me by the Well.

I'd like to include my entire "Defense Letter" sent on June 26th 2000ev:

Care Frater
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. - AL I:40

I received your letter of June 13th. I offer no defense for the allegations mentioned therein because there can be none to deceitful and bogus charges. I am well aware that if the Ordo Templi Orientis decides it wants to expel someone there is always sufficient grounds to sell to the masses. Therefore, why bother to grovel? Besides, there is more at stake here than one's membership.
I know and you know, as do many, that the real reason the Order is trying to expel me is to enable William Breeze's AA lineage, which stems from Marcelo Motta, to solidify its hold over the Ordo Templi Orientis through the elimination of other branches, meaning Grady McMurtry's or mine. Knowing this, let me say that I have absolutely no contempt or animosity for Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis. I really love the fraternity with my whole heart and soul. Yes, I am being expelled, as have many of late but I am not blaming the Order for the misgivings of one paranoid megalomaniac. A presumed spiritual leader who sees enemies lurking behind every tree and under every stone. A man so scared of his own shadow that he fled Austin to Europe simply because of a rumor that someone was going to kill him. A man so terrified that merely having his address known or his picture published throws him into a emotional tizzy. His policies are dragging the beauty of the Order down into the depths of degradation in which he mentally wallows. The bottom line is that I'm not someone who confuses a glistening red apple reflecting the beauty of the Sun with a piece of rotten fruit languoring in a mud filled gutter. If you're expecting me to trash the OTO itself you'll be greatly disappointed. To me, the OTO as envisioned by Aleister Crowley and even by Grady Louis McMurtry is a wonderful fraternity which has tragically entered upon uncompromising times. I am not rebuking the inanimate object for the folly of human consequences. I've always believed, possibly silly I admit now in retrospect, that someday the Order would be restored to its intentional glory and perhaps all the travesties bathing Thelemic communities worldwide could be put behind us.
In ending I'd like to declare, regardless of what any future letter states, that I am not going to accept my expulsion from Frater Hymenaeus Beta (William Gary Breeze) on the ground that he is not OHO. According to our OTO Bylaws Section 2.18 Subsection D: "Any expulsion of a member holding a degree higher than VII* must be carried out by the authority of the O.H.O." I will not get into all the gruesome details but simply proclaiming Dave Scriven a X, who in return elects oneself to OHO was a scam. Plain and simple. I pre-date Frater Hymenaeus Beta's reign in the Order and because of such, as of this moment, I no longer feel he has any authority over me because of his treachery in the Hermetic Triad. I am O.T.O. and I will always be O.T.O., he and no one else can take away this Honour until such a time as a real election by Tenth Degrees is held and he is appointed to the position of OHO properly. Until that time I simply bid him farewell.

Love is the law, love under will. - AL I:57
J. Edward Cornelius

I know there are some who might wonder why I've never submitted more information to the OTO in my final defense letter. If you question this then obviously you haven't been paying attention to the subtleties. For the record, since day one I have never felt that I have been on the defensive once during this entire episode. I learned Chess from Grady McMurtry and I play it well. I have heard too many of Grady's war stories for them not to have sunk in. I have been relentlessly on the attack over false allegations since the beginning and have refused to play the OTO's game by going quietly. The OTO and Bill Breeze, on the other hand, have been defending themselves against the allegations that I was being railroaded over AA issues. Yes, they have been constantly defending themselves, doing damage control and changing the facts to fit new information. Then they regurgitate it all back up to explain away my 'defense' while trying hard to make themselves smell like roses. All it proves is that I wasn't on trial, my defense, in Truth, was playing the white chess pieces and they're too stupid to realize it. 

The above, ending with the last paragraph, was originally intended to be the end of this Epistle. I had finished the first part and ended it with the final line, "Now my tome is over [or at least Part I] and I can get on with my life. All I can do now is to wait for the felonious Notice of Expulsion to complete the travesty." I then sent the entire thing [which has since been slightly edited to reflect that Section XI is not the end] to Phyllis Seckler. I believed, whether right or wrong, that she needed to know the whole story of what was going on behind the scenes.


On Tuesday June 27, the day after I finished my Epistle and mailed it off, I got a phone call from Phyllis Seckler (Soror Meral). It seems that besides my letter to the OTO and my Epistle being sent to her, yesterday also saw Phyllis sending a rather "hot letter" to William Breeze as well. She was calling to discuss this letter with me because she had mentioned me in it. We chatted for well over an hour. I also told her about the package I sent her yesterday. She couldn't wait to read it. Later that day I went to my P.O.Box. and low and behold, Phyllis' letter [dated June 22nd] was already there! Phyllis' demands were rather harsh and direct. She was obviously distraught over AA/OTO matters of late and she unloaded both barrels at Bill Breeze. She also defended me and my actions. She argued that he gave me absolutely no chance to defend myself which was unfair and goes against O.T.O. procedures. She stressed that I was not hurting him in any way and that all I was doing was merely expressing an opinion which is my right according to Liber OZ. I personally think she was very fair with her comments. All in all, the letter is far more complicated but the jest of her remarks in regards myself was that she felt Bill Breeze owed me an apology and that I should be fully reinstated in the O.T.O.

Most harshly to Breeze are her comments about the recent threats which he made to her in a phone conversation on May 21st. Although some people are 'publicly' denying that this occurred, in truth he did threatened her with a lawsuit because of her use of the name of AA in her work. I won't go into the details, but this prompted Phyllis to come out swinging and you can't blame her. She is a fighter. Anyway, she gave Bill Breeze 'three' demands, one of which was a "signed paper ... in [her] hands by July 15." This, I'll discuss later. She ended her eight page, single typed letter with "Finally, I have always praised you for your fine work with the publications. Also you have done a great deal of good work with the O.T.O. When you were elected to the headship of O.T.O., we believed in you and we would again like to believe in your intelligence, you spirit of fair play and your tolerance. Dear brother, please reconsider some of you present actions."

I think it best to quote Seckler's letter to Bill Breeze in it's entirety to get the full flavour:

Dear Bill,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
There is now quite a crisis in the O.T.O. and in my 61 years of membership this seems to be the worst one yet.
What has happened to you? You used to believe in religious freedom and now you are acting with religious intolerance and suppression.
Crowley wrote that the AA and the O.T.O. were two separate Orders. I enclose copies of this letters [These are not included in this epistle. - JEC] and remarks written to clarify matters. These were printed in I.T.C. Vol I, No. 2. You seem to believe that you should be the head of the AA as well as the head of the O.T.O. Why? I am inclined to ask where are your credentials?
The AA is guide by V.V.V.V.V. He wrote the tasks for each grade with George Cecil Jones. This is clear in LIBER 61. V.V.V.V.V. is ever the head of the AA and there can be no other. He is still at work to guide his Order. He does not necessarily need a physical body to do this. Intelligences on the inner planes can make use of all sorts of persons. One of their easiest vehicles is a person of unbalanced or insane mind. Why do you think you were the victim of a stalker? Would it not be good policy to heed what ill fortune besets you?
You have been showing that you can't allow any divergence of view from you own. Why can't you take criticism? Thelemites should be able to express a diversity of opinion without fear of reprisal. Perhaps if you had two revolutionaries to oppose your every decision and move you would not now be in so precarious a position. The two revolutionaries were specified in Crowley's original constitution and their function was to strengthen a Supreme and Holy King, causing him to review his character and behaviour so that he could remain well balanced and so that he did not become an ego-maniac. You have not benefited from this provision and it makes one wonder if you have been afraid of criticism and opposition all along.
According to all accounts, you behaved in an unfair manner when Jerry Cornelius criticized your behaviour in claiming head of the AA. Your actions seem to point to the fact that you wish to bring every AA person under your leadership and jurisdiction. Actually he was correct in his views on this matter. Crowley's instructions are clear enough for each grade of AA and presumably any person could accomplish a great deal in the work and studies on their own. The only catch is that when a person claims a grade in the Order, and there is no person in a higher grade to monitor his work and issue a paper upon completion, that his claims are hard to believe.
But you expelled Jerry for his opinion and also with some ferocity, for you gave him no chance to defend himself. This was unfair and also goes against O.T.O. procedures. Do what thou wilt means that one gives every other person a right to do what he/she wills without interference. Jerry was not hurting you in any way. He merely had an opinion. Is no opinion valid but your own? Have you forgotten LIBER OZ?

"3.  Man has the right to think as he will:
to speak what he will
to write what he will  ----"

You owe Jerry and apology and full reinstatement in the O.T.O.

You even threatened me with a lawsuit because I use the name of AA in my work. Do you think you should be the only one to use this name? That is, you and those of whom you approve?
I have been a part of V.V.V.V.V.'s AA since 1940 when Jane Wolfe inducted me into this Order and gave me a paper for Probationer. In her turn, she was inducted into this Order by Crowley while residing in Cefalu and studying under him.
Also, as everyone knows, Karl Germer was an 8=3 in this Order due to Crowley's knowledge and word of his true grade. Before that, Karl achieved the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel while in a prison camp in Nazi Germany. When Crowley knew of this attainment, he recognised Karl as 5=6 of AA Germer later recognised my own experience with the H.G.A. and wrote to me and to Jane that I was 5=6 AA
At the present with H.G.A. guidance I have founded a College of Thelema and one of my successors has founded the Temple of Thelema under the College. We have classes and college work which aids a student to enter the more difficult work laid out in LIBER 185 (to be found in the last section of GEMS FROM THE EQUINOX.)
When a student enters the AA, we work with strict compliance to the guidelines set out in LIBER 185. No one gets a paper from us for each grade unless they have completed the tasks set forth. If any one of our students is ever challenged, the papers show good, solid work which is overseen and checked by those of higher grades and by adepts if need be. According to Crowley's instructions, only Neophytes or those of higher grades may take on a student but if anything goes wrong, there is always help from our adepts. The work is private and secret and should remain thus as that is the way the AA is supposed to operate. With us there are no imaginary or false claims as to grades, no lies, no pretense and no frauds in all of this work, whether of C.O.T. or of the AA
In our studies at all levels we give a background in Psychology and Astrology so that each person can know the self and can guide his work and choices according to his true nature.
Agreed, this is a difficult time, but as a IX O.T.O. I would like to ask; does the O.T.O. intend to sue any publisher in the world who publishes Crowley writings, either in English or in translations? The present suit seems also to very nearly impoverish the O.T.O. Are all such lawsuits in the best interests of the spread of Thelema? The O.T.O. is supposed to aid in the spread of Thelema world wide, but copyright restrictions could work thoroughly against this aim.
I am also concerned about this policy of lawsuits, as I think Crowley's work will not get a wide enough distribution due to publishers being afraid to publish. There is a good deal of merit in Jim Graeb's work on this matter. I do not see his exploration of other options as a threat to the final settlement of the Naylor, et al lawsuit. A vast majority of lawsuits are settled out of court. By mutual agreement neither Naylor nor O.T.O. is to be affected by this preliminary exploration.
But you can't seem to view this effort in a balanced way and you want Graeb expelled immediately. How do you know how the lawsuit will turn out? What if O.T.O. should lose? Would not Graeb's suggestions then have been a better course to follow? You don't even wait to find out if he was right after all.
Jim Graeb is also fighting for religious and personal freedom and tolerance supposed to be taught in the higher grades of O.T.O. But you are exhibiting intolerance and suppression of the freedom of religion of an AA person. Graeb is doing the work of a revolutionary and you react with haste and fear. Of what are you afraid? Your behaviour makes many others in O.T.O. wonder who will be expelled next. This leads to a lack of independent action on the part of others who hold high positions. Are you intent on making them rubber stamps of yourself?
Yes, you really do need the ideas, the votes and the independent thoughts and work of the IX O.T.O. and also of the VIII. They must act so that the O.T.O. does not become a petty dictatorship.
In our telephone conversation of May 21, I told you that what you and others did with the AA was none of my business and that I hoped for the same courtesy from you. But when you offered to sue me instead because I work with the name of AA, I replied that if you interfered with me, I would have to fight. This is part of my fight.

1.  As a IX of O.T.O., I request you to reinstate Jerry in the O.T.O. with his full
degree restored.
2.  As a IX of O.T.O., I request that you allow Jim Graeb to act as the present
revolutionary without fear of retribution.
3.  As an AA I request that you do not sue either me or my successors over the use
of the name of the AA

If you intend to remedy your present actions with suggestions 1 and 2, please let me know by July 15. As for request No. 3, I request a written statement that you will not sue us over the name of AA This signed paper should be in my hands by July 15.

Of course you may ignore these requests and say nothing. But in that case, copies of this letter shall have a wider distribution.

It is my policy to give a copy of any letter which I write of a serious nature in which I have mentioned a person's name. Therefore both Jerry and Jim Graeb shall have a copy and I ask that they exert extreme discretion in not showing it or reading from it to anyone else. Since your actions also included the Secretary and Treasurer, a copy goes to Marcus Jungkurth and Bill Heidrick. Finally, a copy of this letter shall go to David Scriven because he is head of the U.S.A. O.T.O. and should know of anything that goes on.

Finally, I have always praised you for your fine work with the publications. Also you have done a great deal of good work with the O.T.O. When you were elected to the headship of O.T.O., we believed in you and we would again like to believe in your intelligence, you spirit of fair play and your tolerance. Dear brother, please reconsider some of you present actions.

Love is the law, love under will
Fraternally with much love
Phyllis Seckler (Soror Meral)


On Wednesday June 28th Kalil sent an email to [omitted] who often posts on Thelema93 and who was curious about the AA 'feud' going on in the world. It's important to quote this letter because it also reflects my views very clearly on this subject.

"Hello [omitted], Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I was forwarded your email on T93 regarding the 'feud' going on between two AA branches. I can only assume you mean the current 'expulsion' of Jerry Cornelius from the OTO? I would like to discuss this with you as to the reality of the situation.
At the very beginning I wish to state that I do not want nor intend to get into a semantics battle. I do not like the manner in which the elists twist emotionally charged words such as Feud into other inflammatory issues. My brief experience on T93 was such an event and, personally, it is not where the majority of my Life is at this time. However, I respect that you seem to have a level head and wish to clarify the situation for you. I am also writing this for myself as my actions in answering and then relaying messages about the Cornelius Expulsion has brought the subject up on the elist in the first place.
For the record, my branch of the AA is not feuding with Beta. There is a difference. We do not care If he is AA or argue against his being AA at all. We are simply not willing to accept His claims to rulership of the entire organization. I find it laughable that he claims to be "the traditional authority" of AA as his less than glorious past associations with AA is well documented. However, please look at the symptoms of the matter.
Who is expelling, threatening and acting in an aggressive manner? It is Beta of course. He is acting in regards to the AA as he is doing with the OTO. It is not just Jerry (and us) that he attacks. He has made actions against many other branches as well. He is the one out of control. True, we are the first to come-out and refuse to accept his aggressions. However, that is our gift from Grady, we are warriors and proud of it.
There is much the elist does not know about the inner workings of our and other groups of AA. Many branches have seen Beta as being a control-freak and for many years we, meaning my branch and the other AA branches as well, have simply watched quietly and attended to our own business. My branch has happily remained 'hidden' for over 15 years. We knew in '85 when Beta took over the OTO that another branch was in charge. However, over the years, and particularly in the last 8 or so, Beta has become more aggressive. He is now using OTO money to attack other groups...his "Consider the Source" in the last Magickal Link was just one such endeavor.
Please, reserve judgment about us. Should the members of AA simply lie down and allow a megalomaniac stomp all over us? I bet that you will begin to see other AA branches come out as well in the near future. It is not my place to address their concerns but they are becoming enough concerned to take their own actions. You must never forget that although the AA does reside in the lofty heights, it still has its roots in Malkuth and must deal with mundane matters from time to time. 'Order well the Kingdom' is a true aphorism.
AAdoes not like to be political. It is not in the interests of either Student or Teacher as it takes far too much energy away from the tasks at hand. My own work is much hampered in the last couple months (is that all!?) by such activity. Still, if the liberty to exist outside of Beta's cliché is what is at risk, then I will fight in the open. Again, we are not attacking Beta's AA or their right to exist. He is the one attempting to deny us our own right.
I welcome any dialogue with you on this matter if you wish. It does hurt to see reasonable people assume my branch is doing something 'wrong' and not that we are defending the very right to exist for ALL branches of the AA.
Love is the law, love under will.

Later in the evening, at 6:20pm to be precise, I found a message on my answering machine. It said, "93 Jerry this is Phyllis. I want to ask some questions about your 44 page run-down, of what happened. Could you ... get back to me a little later, before 8:30 maybe?" I immediately called her back. After our initial hellos, she asked how many copies of my Epistle I had given out? I replied, "Two, one to her and another to [a member of my  AA]." I explained that I didn't write it to distribute as much as to "get it off my chest" so I could put the whole matter behind me. She replied that this information must get out and that I shouldn't keep it quiet or buried. In the end, I promised her that I would distribute the information, at least to Jim Eshelman and Jim Graeb. We also discussed her own letter in-depth to Breeze and I told her how brilliant it was. We talked about many things, too many to write down and, besides, most of it was personal. On the following morning of Thursday June 29th I printed up a copy of my Epistle and mailed to Jim Eshelman. I would give Jim Graeb his copy on July 4th.

On Friday June 30th Jim Graeb called, very, very upset. It seems Dave Scriven, aka Frater Sabazius X, accused him of "filling Phyllis' head with lies, deceit and misinformation" and implied that she is "mentally incompetent" to understand the Truth [these quotes were Jim's words, not necessarily Dave's]. It seems Dave sent Jim an email where he stated, and I quote, "I just received a cc of a letter from Phyllis to Bill. ... her letter did contain a list of grievances, a number of which seem to be rather ill-informed. From the content of her letter, it would appear that you (or someone) alleged to her that..."

Dave then lists five statements which he feels are blatant lies in Phyllis' letter to Bill Breeze.

The first statement is about Jim Graeb personally and it doesn't relate to my expulsion. The second lie according to Scriven is that, "The disciplinary action against Jerry C. was based exclusively on A:.A:. issues." Dave then includes in parenthesis a rebuttal saying, "(contrast Tony's plea to Jerry, in your presence, to remove his material from Koenig's website);" Obviously this shows that Dave is either ill-informed, very stupid or is just willing to lie. I think I've already proven in this Epistle that the material on Koenig's website is predominantly A:.A:. related. Besides I have not said my expulsion was 'exclusively' based on A:.A:. issues. Rather, I've stated time and time again that this issue is what has fueled Bill Breeze's anger from day one.

The third myth according to Scriven is that "Jerry was never given any chance to respond to the complaints against him" He then adds in parenthesis his brief rebuttal, "(ibid, with Jerry's stubborn rejection);" To reply to this allegation I'd like to quote what I wrote to Tony Iannotti a few days later, or on the 30th in regards to Dave's comment. I asked him, "When did I rejected to submit a defense? What bull-shit. If I remember correctly, tell me if I'm wrong, but I told you that I was writing my defense letter and waiting to receive the final 'charges' which were coming from Breeze [which never arrived] and the questions coming from Lon & Jim [which also never arrived] ... because I was waiting for the above and before I could finish my 'defense letter' ... WHAM! ... the Grand Tribunal came up with it's recommendation to expel me." This is the actual truth. I never stubbornly rejected to give a defense to the OTO. I was never given the chance.

The fourth statement which Scriven says is false is that, "Bill Breeze personally desires to be world-wide head of A:.A:." Dave adds, "(He explained his position in detail at the Areopagus meeting, which you could and should have attended. I relayed his stated position to you in Riverside, and it did and does not include him being head of A:.A:.)" Obviously this Epistle of mine proves otherwise. Although in all honesty, Dave is not really lying, he's simply playing semantics. Yes, Bill Breeze may never have said that 'he' wanted to be the world-wide head of A:.A:. but, then again, he has stated that only his A:.A:. would be tolerated. Besides, it is not secret that Bill Breeze is actually the number two man in their lineage. James Daniel Gunther holds the position of number one.

The fifth and final lie according to Scriven is, "Bill Breeze has threatened to sue Phyllis over her use of the A:.A:. name and symbols." Scriven writes that this is "(baseless and absurd)." So what is Dave Scriven saying, Phyllis is a liar? Why is it that everyone else is a liar except Bill Breeze? This is always the first line of defense by OTO leadership. "We're right, everyone else are liars!" It's a tragic stance. Personally, I believe that Phyllis' credibility as being truthful and honorable is a far cry greater than that of Mr.Breeze. I could write a volume on comparisons. Obviously Scriven thinks otherwise, if he thinks at all. Anyway, much of what Dave Scriven writes is simply a 'spin' on the truth to do damage control. But I'd like to ask, "Who is really telling the misinformation, David?" Anyway, I called Marlene at work, she down-loaded Dave's email, put it in an envelope and sent it to Phyllis. She needs to know what Scriven is saying about her.

On June 30th I sent Tony Iannotti an email. Letting him know, "On another note. All Hell is breaking loose this week. Phyllis has gotten involved with the A:.A:. issue and has written a scathing letter to Breeze. Have you heard about this yet? Anyway, it seems Breeze threatened her on May 21st in a phone conversation over the use of A:.A:. sigils etc, which was a bad move. Of course, he's denying it now and so is Dave Scriven. ... Dave and others are claiming that Jim Graeb and I are filling Phyllis' head with lies and misunderstandings. Dave Scriven even said that Bill Breeze never stated that he personally "desires to be world-wide head of A:.A:." at the Areopagus Meeting. Claiming, 'He explained his position in detail at the Areopagus meeting.' He accepted other lineages (?) ... but, doesn't this seem like it's opposite what you told me?" 

I then told Tony a story I had recently heard, how another source present at the Areopagus meeting but who "demands" to remain anonymous, told me, "Tony is full of himself about the A[reopagus] meeting. What he quoted to you never never happened. It's bad lies" He went on to say, "Bill never said there was only one A:.A:.. Nor was he angry about your (i.e. meaning me) comments in Red Flame. The issue never really came up." I then told Tony that I defended him rather hotly, but got back a simple, brief email that I was wrong and "Tony is obviously scattered or mistaken" of the events on April 29th. End of subject. I asked Tony, "So what gives? Are the spin doctors changing the story or what? I told you they were going to try to hang your credibility out to dry. Aren't you glad you came out of hiding?" To this Tony replied, "I do seem next at the spit! As far as the anonymous member of Areopagus I don't care about what cowards say. What David is saying now does seem like the opposite of what I remember and also of what you've been saying, and also what he's been writing."

There is an official copy of the Minutes of the last Areopagus Meeting which lists what was discussed and wasn't. In regards to 'my issue' it states: "1 Agenda Addition. 1.1. Motion: To make the following addition to the agenda as an emergency issue pursuant to Bylaws Section 2.18(c): The Standards of conduct to be expected from a member of the Secret Areopagus. Background: Jerry Cornelius published "Red Flame" in which he discusses in detail the OTO initiation rituals (violation of the oath of secrecy) and, after the issuance of the Agenda for the Areopagus meeting, allowed P.R.-Koenig to post some articles published in supra on his website (an act prejudicial to the welfare of the Order.) Directly following this is "1.2 motion" which goes into how to deal with me, appointing a Grand Tribunal etc. All in all, the meeting began at 12:45pm with the first Motion and the 2nd Motion ended at 4:30pm. Just like Tony said, roughly four hours of dealing just with me. FOUR HOURS! And only a few lines in the official minutes! If this ain't a travesty, there is no mention of anything regarding AA issues. It's like Breeze's rants didn't even happen. However, didn't the Grand Tribunal convict me for letting Kalil release the 'minutes' of the Areopagus Meeting to the public by quoting Tony regarding Bill Breeze's AA views? But, if this was true, then why isn't what I or Kalil wrote about in regards to Breeze's AA rant found anywhere in the minutes? The official minutes are seemingly devoid of everything Tony told me.  And they say there is no conspiracy!


On Monday July 3rd Tony Iannotti finally forwarded me the complete 'email file of our personal correspondence' of what he's sending to Breeze. Doing this has always rubbed me wrong from day one. The OTO had already found me guilty and recommended my expulsion. Now, it's simply trying to prove their case after the fact because its own incompetence has come back to haunt them and has caused them considerable flack worldwide. It's no secret that they're trying to use my email correspondence to prove that I did offer a defense contrary to what I'm claiming. In some ways they're correct but, in others, they're blatantly wrong. Right up till the day the Grand Tribunal made up its mind to recommend my expulsion I was still waiting for the official charges to arrive from the OTO as well as the GT's questions so I could address them as a defense. I still had no idea what the exact charges were against me. Even Tony knew this, we discussed it and my emails prove it. My defense was going to be an "official letter" but I was waiting for the charges and questions to arrive so I could address them properly. My emails between Tony & myself prove beyond a shred of a doubt that I never forwarded this defense letter nor was given the opportunity to do such before the Grand Tribunal came to its conclusion. What I find so reprehensible now is that they want to wave my personal email correspondence in the air and say, "Look people, he's lying! He was given the opportunity to offer a defense! and here it is!" 

During the course of this day, Tony and I emailed back and forth to clarify misunderstandings, mostly on my part. I thought everything that he sent was being forwarded right away. It wasn't. At least it wouldn't be until I made editing suggestions about personal stuff which had absolutely no bearing on my expulsion. Later in the afternoon I sent the following:

"Tony 93! Sorry for venting. I'm stretched to the limit over all this bullshit of trying to justify my expulsion after the fact of accusing me of a crime. It's become a daily thing with numerous emails floating in to give me all the graphic details of what is going on behind the scenes. It wears you down after a while.
Bill Breeze, Heidrick, Scriven and others are lying through their teeth of late and the 'damage control' being done at my expense has got me about three shades ready to go in for the kill. These guys don't realize it but the people who are asking them so many question are actually friends of mine too, who I might add, are telling me everything. This is not a fraternity anymore ... it's back stabbing treachery. Your package this morning came in while I was dealing with their attacks on Phyllis. Yes, it's become bad. They're trying to trash this woman as being mentally incapable of discerning the facts. They're saying Graeb & I are filling her head with deceit and misinformation. Were basically being called liars! This is not the fraternity I joined in 77. If Breeze wants to know why he has enemies ... it's because HE MAKES THEM. His behavior toward me is widening a gulf a hatred by the moment. Then when I come out swinging he's going to publicly cry, 'Why me? What did I do to make him so mad?' ... Sadly, I'm getting so much treachery thrown at me ... I often don't have time to think.
I need a vacation
I'll have the edited material emailed to you by the weekend.
93 93/93 Jerry ."

On Tuesday July 4th Tony wrote, "93! Don't worry about venting, I understand. Please remain assured that I am not going to send anybody anything you wrote to me without your approval. Their attacks on Phyllis are really bothering me, if you have any suggestions as to how I might better serve her than I was able to serve you it would be very much appreciated. (Of course, she probably does not need my help any more than you do, I _am_ full of myself sometimes!) Anyway, no apology necessary, I did not mention in the cover letter that it was for your editing. I hope you do get a vacation from all this soon, I'm sure we could both use one! 93, 93/93 Tony." Later in the day I replied, "At times I am amazed that you put up with me. I am humbled." In regards to his concern about their attacks on Phyllis and asking how he might help I replied, "Their attacks are bothering many of us. I'd suggest contacting her. Do you have her phone number? She knows a lot about what has been going on of late even though both Breeze and Scriven have asked that she not be informed. [ask Jim about that, he'll give you the details.] Anyway, she knows the full jest of our correspondence. I've kept absolutely nothing from her. Why should I? In fact, she is the only person to have a copy of my 44 page 'Epistle on My Expulsion' which goes into all the gruesome details behind the scenes from day one to present. She was shocked when she read it. Called me right up and we chatted over an hour. She said she knew 'only the tip of the iceberg' and 'didn't know it was this bad' in regards to Bill's A:.A:. shenanigans. All in all, she needs info, honest and truthful. She's a wonderful person and being kept in the dark and not knowing can be difficult. Support is the key word. You should call her. Since she knows a lot about what you & I have chatted about, you already have something in common right up front, and can begin by just saying, "So you know?" Basically what I'm saying is that you're wrong, Phyllis and myself both need your help. Phyllis likes you a lot, misses you. She told me so. You should contact her."

Tony would later reply, "No, I have been working crazy hours this week, will try to touch base with her this coming one. I don't think I have her number, though, do you have it handy? It must be over a decade since I have spoken with her." As for my comment that Phyllis told me the information should be made public and not buried in files or kept quiet, Tony agreed with her, replying, "Good for her! I also think the whole thing could be helped to heal (if possible) by a liberal dose of exposure to sunlight and air. Kill or cure! I'd very much like a copy of it." He continued saying, "I think this may well be the parting of the ways for you and HB, and that may well be healthy for both of you! What he does with the OTO is not good for your heart, and you have so many more pleasant ways to spend your time. And a bit of madness is not unhealthy either, enjoyed in moderation. ;-)." In many ways I agree with Tony.

On Friday July 7th, I'm not going into all the details, I got 'drift' that certain people over-seas might be getting a copy of my Epistle through a third party. I didn't want it to get out so I emailed a few close friends saying, "I'm writing you is to let you know that there is an unedited, first draft copy of my 'Epistle on the Expulsion of Jerry Edward Cornelius' floating around. It's a tome at 44 pages. However, there are things going on behind the scenes right now which makes it important not to post this too quickly. If it comes your way, please hold on to it 'privately' ..."  Marlene also sent out an email to another friend, saying, "In case the recent Epistle has begun making any 'rounds' please recall or postpone any action on it. There is much afoot and it is, after all, only a 'Draft' which might be radically altered in the near future. We have alerted others as well but you may know some we do not."

Saturday July 8th I spent the morning finishing up on my editing of the stuff Tony wants to send to Bill Breeze. I sent my recommendations to Tony around 7:20 am. I told him, "For starters, I would like EVERYTHING prior to Sunday May 14th excluded & not sent because it predates when you told me the Grand Tribunal was formed and that you were on it. ... I think this is fair." He would later reply, "Yep, definitely, I agree. Nothing prior to my note to you on the 14th."  I then wrote, "As for the rest of the listings below. These are things I'd like omitted because they were personal things which I believe have no bearing on my expulsion and, or, were things I discussed 'privately.' I've left in the 'dates' so each entry can be found easily." He would reply, "OK, this is exactly what I needed as far as direction. I will make the deletions, and bounce you back the edited version for your approval before sending to anyone."

I ended my email by saying, "It all seems to be heating up ... have you talked with Phyllis yet? In my previous email I mentioned that I had given Phyllis a copy of my 44 page 'Epistle on My Expulsion' which goes into all the gruesome details behind the scenes from day one to present. Although I had written this piece, as I explained to her, as a form of 'putting closure on things' and that it wasn't meant to be released, she 'wants' it made public. She stressed to me that this info should not be buried in files or kept quiet. After a lengthy talk of over an hour on the phone, she convinced me. Anyway, a lot is coming down on the 15th of this month. That is the date Phyllis gave to Breeze requesting certain demands from him. Of course Bill's ego won't allow himself to meet them, but if her demands are not met then she's going public with certain info and I'm releasing my Epistle as well for public distribution. Would you like a copy? ... 93 93/93 Jerry." 

Afterwards I worked on the revisions to the Epistle On My Expulsion, editing and adding in new info, pages upon pages. It grew from 44 pages to almost sixty. Later, we got a phone call from Jim Graeb. I was busy so Marlene chatted with him. He was worried to death in regards to letting out my Epistle because Wednesday, the day after getting it on the 4th, he copied it & shipped it to every single Ninth Degree in the world! He must have burned a line to his copy machine! 9:15am I called Graeb back, we chatted awhile. I told him that it would have been nice if he had told me that he was going to do this, or even after he had done it so I could prepare myself accordingly. ... Afterwards, Marlene decided to check our emails and the humor continued. It seems Ruthanne sent us a brief message around 8:55am, just before Jim called, or while I was in the shower. She wrote us saying, "Dear Marlene, Please don't have a cow. Jim just informed me that you guys didn't know he was sending it out to all the lX*s. He already mailed the fucker out, with some lengthy bulky download of the Apology of Socrates. He is holding his head and groaning even as I type.....I think this just ruined his day... Sorry sorry for the miscommunication! On my part, I haven't sent it anywhere. Waiting! love, Ruthanne."

At 2:53pm I sent Tony Iannotti an 'oops' email. "Tony 93 I've been out doing errands all morning. Now that I'm back I think there is something you should know. I got a phone call from Jim Graeb this morning shortly after I sent you my email. He was responding to an email of yesterday telling people not to post my 44 page Epistle. Anyway, he was worried because I gave him a copy Tuesday night, at Phyllis' request. However, he took it upon himself to make copies and send such to every single IXth Degree in the world on Wednesday morning! I didn't want it to get out like this but ... there is little I can say now except oops! All in all, I'm not mad at Jim for doing it ... I just wish he had told me about it, before or at least shortly thereafter. I don't like being kept in the dark about things directly effecting me. I did get the impression that if I didn't send out the email asking people not to post the Epistle, Jim wouldn't have called to let me know what he had already done. That would have really pissed me off. Anyway, when it arrives, I hope you enjoy it. Sorry for it getting out this way. 93 93/93 Jerry." Tony would reply, very briefly, "No problem, I look forward to seeing it! Others will of course be more upset, but c'est la vie."

Later in the evening I called Phyllis Seckler to let her know what Jim Graeb did in regards to sending my Epistle out to all the IXths. It's funny, typical Phyllis, she replied by saying, "Oh my." We talked for about ten minutes. Neither of us being mad at Jim's actions. However, it seems Jim called her this morning after talking with me but he failed to tell her about his shenanigans with my epistle. Anyway, I felt she needed to know this just in case someone called her about it. She felt like me, that Jim should have called & let me know what he was doing.

8:10pm Marlene checked our email. Keith Schurholz sent a rather revealing email between himself & Dave Scriven. Of interest is when Keith writes about keeping the minutes to the Areopagus Meeting quiet, saying, "A word about the secrecy of minutes, etc: It's great, but please don't use it as a way to cover up things that might embarrass the OTO's leadership. You guys need to learn to be more accountable and take your lumps when you're wrong. And HB can be wrong, and so can Sbzs. The Clinton administration learned that the cover up can become more of a problem than the original problem itself. 93:93/93 Keith."  Ouch!  Hit them hard and below the belt Keith! In regards to the 'secrecy of minutes' & the 'cover up things that might embarrass the OTO's leadership' Dave Scriven simply replied, "I am not aware of anything in the Areopagus minutes that we are trying to cover up ..." When I read this I sat back in my chair and chuckled. Memory lapse, perhaps? I had to immediately send Tony a brief email with Dave's quote so he could enjoy the comment as well. He must have found it rather amusing because, with his typical sense of humor, he replied, "That's excellent, then they won't mind your Epistle being distributed!" From July 5th the days passed into a week and then more. It was a quiet period [sort of].

Then, on Saturday July 15th, myself and others drove up to meet with Phyllis Seckler to discuss matters of late. On the previous Wednesday [12th] Bill Heidrick and Bill Breeze had both visited her. I will not go into the details of either of these visits but I can say, Phyllis got her letter! It's in Bill Breeze handwriting and very brief. It simply say:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
This is to affirm that neither the Ordo Templi Orientis,
nor myself in any other capacity, will ever contest
in a court of Law the use of the name or Lamen
of the August Fraternity AA.
Love is the law, love under will.
Frater Hymenaeus Beta Frater Superior OTO." 

It's dated July 12th 2000. The 15th Anniversary of Grady McMurtry's death.

I joked with Phyllis about how she got Breeze, Heidrick and myself out of our houses and visiting all in the same week. She laughed loudly with a roar, then was quick to reply, "Ya, I haven't had this much attention since I was in the Second Grade!" The following day I sent out an email to my friends worldwide ...

Care Frater 93!
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I won't go into all the details but basically, Saturday's meeting with Phyllis Seckler and
others in regards to the A:.A:. went phenomenally well. Although I can not give out copies
[yet] we do have it in writing, in Bill Breeze's own hand, that on July 12th 2000 he
conceded and acknowledges that neither the Ordo Templi Orientis, nor himself in any other
capacity, will ever contest in a court of Law the use of the name or the Lamen of the august
Fraternity A:.A:. by anyone. Bill Breeze has completely backed off on his claims of being
the 'only' A:.A:. in the world! Although it is not everything I would have hoped for I am still
elated with this document. Even if I am expelled from the Ordo Templi Orientis my entire
fight from day one to the present in regards to the rights of the A:.A:. members worldwide
has been successful and I feel fully vindicated.
Love is the law, love under will.
J. Edward Cornelius.



Love is the law, love under will. - AL I:57
Frater Achad Osher

Issued this 16th Day of July, 2000 ev
From the Valley of Berkeley, CA

[Editor: Some spelling errors have been corrected in the letters & emails
which are quoted in this Epistle for the readers convenience.]

Return to Contents Page
Return to Previous Page