THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick
From: heidrick@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Subject: Re: Bill Breeze expelled.. well kinda..
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:19:40 GMT

93,

On 12 Apr 2004 16:45:25 -0700, awaiss939@yahoo.com (Bill Breeze)
wrote:

No, he didn't.  That's a bogus id,  However, to the content:

>http://home.sunrise.ch/prkoenig/whatsnew.htm  look for the zip file
>posted on 04/10
>
>Very interesting stuff.... Graeb has revoked Bill's EGC lineage and
>expelled him from the EGC,

Graeb did not have and does not have any authority in the matter to do
such a thing.

>and being head of the SOG of the XIº has
>taken away that degree as well...... 

Graeb was not the head of that either.  No authority to do that.  At
that time, Fr. Mithras, not Graeb, was chartered head of the
"experimental XIth" that had been authorized by Grady McMurtry.   That
experiment has ended and the original XIth is independent of it.

>and revoked his direct connection
>to Crowley... Via Graeb being the person that "laid hands" on Breeze,
>and proclaimed him a IXº .... thoughts??????

I was there.  Graeb and HPSmith counted the votes in the straw pole,
with the consent of the IXth.  I was the only one still running
against in the election.  I conceded on announcement of the results
and the IXth held an unanimous official vote of acclimation to elect
without any action by Graeb other than voting.  Every IXth laid hands
on for victor simultaneously, Graeb being one of many and in no way
more notable than any for that action.  All present, including Graeb,
swore allegiance to HB as head of the order.  Every IXth was present
and none were absent.

There was no indication from Graeb or Grady McMurtry in support of the
claims of authority given in regard to running or guiding the OTO, as
maintained by Graeb in this matter to be a verbal communication from
Grady.  In any event, such an authority would have been in direct
violation of the Articles and Bylaws of OTO drafted, signed and filed
by McMurtry, Graeb and myself, still in full effect at the time.  It
would also have been in violation of the resolutions of the Supreme
Council, which Graeb himself voted to accept in the days immediately
preceding the last days of Grady McMurtry and in violation of both the
last will and testament as well as the memorandum of past gift to the
Order, as made by Grady.  I called and assembled  the election myself,
in the absence of any action by Graeb pursuant to the Resolutions and
Bylaws of the OTO.   Graeb had agreed with me to do the notification
as a delegated service, but he failed to accomplish that adequately
and I had to do it directly.  I stepped aside after my initial remarks
at the meeting, recusing myself from the appointed role of MC'ing the
election on grounds of being one of the candidates.  Graeb was given
that duty, not from any native or previously granted authority of any
kind but by my direct granting and the approval of the IXth assembled,
solely to assist in the mechanics of the meeting and election. 

93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Elector IXth, original incorporator of OTO and present Treasurer
General





Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ec13cbac!not-for-mail
From: heidrick@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Bill Breeze expelled.. well kinda..
Reply-To: heidrick@well.com
Message-ID: <407d1a94.3870334@news.west.earthlink.net>
References:  <407bc425.2671533@news.west.earthlink.net> 
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 118
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:53:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.40.27
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1081943610 209.165.40.27 (Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:53:30 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:53:30 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:371900

93,

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:46:13 -0400, Concerned Thelemite
 wrote:


>Well, as per the authority portion, if you ,Bill, have the initiatory
>authority to lay hands upon me and make me a ninth, don't you also
>have the magickal right to revoke that as well?

I have authority to do certain initiations in accord with certain
regulations.  I can no more retract a done initiation than I can
retract a walk down a road -- done is done.  An initiation is the
start of something, and once started that thing may or may not go
anywhere.  Nothing can make that beginning never to have been. 
   However, there are two other matters.  OTO makes members, and
without delegated right I cannot make a IXth nor can Graeb.  All the
IXth's did that particular one, being the entire assembled authority
of the Order during the interregnum -- although a simple majority
would have sufficed at that time.  OTO can unmake members, but it
cannot unmake an initiation properly done.  Thus, two elements -- a
valid initiation and a valid authority to make a member in degree.
Those are associated intrinsically, but they are not the same.  The
initiation cannot be undone, although the initiated may or may not do
anything with it.  The membership can be undone, but not by an
individual as such other than the member him or her self.   Only the
membership entity, in this case OTO, can end a membership short of
departure of the individual in one manner or another.

>Or did Mr Breeze also
>reform the Order to the point that you cannot make ninths
>independently of your own will. 

That power, to make IXth's entirely by individual choice, never
existed.  It's a dual power: the candidate must demonstrate knowledge
of the secret and the OTO must voluntarily agree to make that
individual a IXth degree member -- through authorized action by
another IXth, Xth or XIIth.   Such authority comes from the OTO itself
and presently resides with the OHO and may be executed by any he
chooses to charter, of sufficient degree.  During the interregnum
between HA and HB, that choice rested with the IXth's as a whole.
Before, it only resided with HA.  Now with HB.  Neither Graeb nor I
ever had it as individual OTO members acting alone.  The Supreme
Council, shortly before Grady died, passed a resolution clarifying
that and excluding the power to make IXths from the interim
conservator head of the Order without the consent of the IXth's.
Graeb was not that conservator, sometimes inaccurately called the
interim Caliph.  The Bylaws gave that duty to the GTG of the day.
Since then, the Bylaws have changed, but that was the rule at the time
of the election.

>If Breeze's apostlistic EGC pedigree comes directly from Graeb then
>doesn't Graeb have the authority to revoke that pedigree? 

Breeze's EGC line of consecration does not depend on Graeb.  Graeb and
I received consecration from Grady.  So did Breeze, although Breeze
had an independent consecration before that which also did not include
Graeb.  Like an initiation, once done, done.  Once a priest or a
bishop, a priest or a bishop forever.  Membership may be removed, but
not consecration.

>Every IXth laid hands
>>on for victor simultaneously, Graeb being one of many and in no way
>>more notable than any for that action.  All present, including Graeb,
>>swore allegiance to HB as head of the order.  Every IXth was present
>>and none were absent.
>
>What was there a Twister board game set up in the hotel conference
>room? How do you suppose 12 people could simultaneously lay hands on
>Breeze? Was he laying down on the floor?

Standing in the middle.   Some of us are shorter than others.  Be that
as it may, 'twas done.

>Seeing as how the whole election was recorded and transcibed the above
>statement is somewhat called into question. Nowhere in the transcipt
>nor the recording of the meeting is there any evidence to the above
>comment. The first person to pronounce Breeze "Caliph" is Graeb...
>then Seckler "knights" him.. 

That's the transcript made by Graeb.  :-)

Besides, those who recall certain OTO rituals may also recall that the
proclamation of degree is not always made by the initiator(s).

>":GRAEB: By the Powers vested in me by the IX° Ordo Templi Orientis I
>hereby make you "Caliph" of the Ordo Templi Orientis."

We all said things of that sort.  It's interesting that the individual
who made the unauthorized "transcript" managed to omit that little
detail.  :-)

You might want to re-read that particular quote, just as an assist.
Did he claim to say "by my powers" or "by the powers vested in me by
the IX..."?  In any event Graeb alone could not make anybody Caliph.
That office was dictated in the Bylaws.  Those Bylaws mandated a vote
at that time.  It was the outcome of the vote, simply.   One may
proclaim, but that's empty without something to proclaim.  There was a
conflict between the Bylaws and a written direction made by Grady in
his last will and testament.  The Bylaws said this was to be by vote
of the IXth.  The LWT said by vote of the Supreme Council.  To cover
all contingencies, we did both and the outcome was the same in both.

By the way, do you recall from the Blue Equinox the minimum degree
requirement if someone is to be made OHO of OTO?   I seem to recall
that it's Minerval, not IXth.   Everybody in the room met that
requirement, but only one was elected.  The others conferred the IXth,
with the agreement of the elected Caliph/OHO.  They made that person
the head of the order by the issue of the vote, not by the conferring
of that degree.

>Spindoctoring and whitewashing... will it never end......

Probably not, but I came into this during the "drying cycle".  It's
the previous cycle that got everything all wet.  :-)

93 93/93
Bill

Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!HSNX.atgi.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ec13cbac!not-for-mail
From: heidrick@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Bill Breeze expelled.. well kinda..
Reply-To: heidrick@well.com
Message-ID: <40810525.4729636@news.west.earthlink.net>
References:  <407bc425.2671533@news.west.earthlink.net>  <407d1a94.3870334@news.west.earthlink.net> 
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 112
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:47:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.44.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1082198874 209.165.44.81 (Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:47:54 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:47:54 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:372002

93,

On 16 Apr 2004 15:11:16 -0700, awaiss939@yahoo.com the person who is
not (Bill Breeze) wrote:

>> That's the transcript made by Graeb.  :-)
>No it wasn't, and the transcript matches the recording word for word.
>There is no differnce between them.

1. No.
2. The tape wasn't on most of the time.

>It is ironic how Breeze wasn't, for the longest time before Grady
>died, in any way for an amendment to the bylaws to allow for the
>Caliph to be voted into office.

How would you know, if 'twere so or not so?

>There is, or was, a precedent of
>succession set which he supported. Hence the Caliphate letters, which
>is the SOLE reason that the current legal body exists.

No.  The current legal bodies (plural -- one OTO in several countries
with several establishment entities) exist in direct consequence of
their being established in fact, in law and through continuous
maintance.  It can be argued that Grady's Caliphate letters, plus the
separate charter letters plus many other facts contributed jointly and
severally to the determination of the Federal IXth District Court that
OTO under the Hymeni is the continuation of the OTO once led by
Crowley.

>The org. is now
>exclusively defacto.

And dejure.

>Oh, and to jar your memory Bill, Phyllis was the
>only person with FULL initiatory authority....
>HEIDRICK:

Nonsense.  Phyllis had and has limited and circumstantial authority
just as others do and did have.

>Phyllis has a paper from Grady, the previous "Caliph",
>giving her
>    full powers of initiation. This will remove any question.
>SECKLER: By the Powers vested in me I knight you "Caliph" of the
>O.T.O.

Note the language attributed to me  -- there's no "only".  There's no
issue but removing any question of the fact of the outcome.   I was
intent on eliminating any doubts by covering all bases.  I suppose
literacy and the lack of it will always find a way...

You are getting a little too tenuous for reply.

>>We all said things of that sort.  It's interesting that the
>individual
>> who made the unauthorized "transcript" managed to omit that little
>> detail.  :-)
>
>The only people that said that "type" of thing was Graeb and Seckler.
>Maybe "things like that" were said at the bar or something, but they
>were clearly not said for the "record".

So the world stops when the tape is off or people are off mike?  The
tape was not intended to record the entire meeting, which went on for
most of a day at two locations miles apart.  The only things intended
to be said for the record (distinct from the tape recording) were the
critical points of the meeting -- assembly, deliberation, election.
The Q&A as well as many other parts of the meeting were explicitly
directed to not be recorded.  Some things were recorded that didn't
matter.  Some things were not recorded by tape that were memorialized
in writing.  The outcome of the straw pole was not supposed to be
recorded.  The post election remarks of people in the room were not
recordable by the simple facts of the gathering and the inadequacy of
the mike.

>>So did Breeze, although Breeze
>> had an independent consecration before that which also did not include
>> Graeb.
>
>So was that consecration before or after Breeze failed as a
>probationer with Motta? Or was his consecration from that nutter
>Bertiaux?

Frankly, I'm not going to argue with you.  I've corrected you and your
source in a number of places.  That's my contribution.  I neither know
nor care what your will is.  Neither am I going to contribute further
to bandwidth by trying to assist your synapses in a synopsis.

>Here is Breeze's take on it...... His opinions do kinda change like
>his name don't they??
>
>dot.dot.dot.dot.dot.... news from the War Room......
>"Breeze: And that the O.H.O. is not an elected office at all and
>  that when it says in the Constitution that an O.H.O. is created in a
>  manner not here to be declared, that it's by appointment. How do you
>  imagine that an O.H.O. could be elected from the grade of
>  Minerval? I mean it's impossible!"

Fact or failure on the quote details to the side, Hymenaeus Alpha
appointed a procedure instead of an individual.  Hymenaeus Beta may
choose a more direct approach, or not....

>Knowledge, Will, Courage and Silence

Three down, one to go.

93 93/93
Bill


Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.usenetserver.com!cyclone.bc.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ec13cbac!not-for-mail
From: heidrick@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Bill Breeze expelled.. well kinda..
Reply-To: heidrick@well.com
Message-ID: <40825b29.4178491@news.west.earthlink.net>
References:  <407bc425.2671533@news.west.earthlink.net>  <407d1a94.3870334@news.west.earthlink.net>  <40810525.4729636@news.west.earthlink.net> 
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 116
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:37:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.40.51
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1082288228 209.165.40.51 (Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:37:08 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:37:08 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:372046

93,

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:32:29 -0400, Concerned Thelemite
 wrote:

>Just curious here.....
>
>Bill why even acknowledge the post? 

Just splitting the hair between correction of account of fact and
protesting too much.

>Regardless of the information disseminated,  it would appear that you
>are  attempting to argue a point and correct this person in a way that
>edges on "spindoctoring". It seems you are on the defensive. There are
>"No's" and no "maybe's" or even a "perhaps".. 

Right.  As a witness and participant, I have some things to say when
the facts are being misrepresented.  Then, as a participant and an
interested party, I have some tendency to react when the situation is
being mischaracterized by happenstance.  Going beyond, it becomes one
spider out webbing another, and that's the time to check out.

>Oh and just a quick question, now that the subject has been brought
>up.. Why is it that not all the OTO people around the world were
>invited to this election? Metzger comes to mind, didn't Grady
>acknowledge him as a Xº? What about the Brazilians? Just curious.... 

1. only the IXth were enfranchised at that time.  Since then, the
right to vote on major issues (not necessarily this particular one)
has been extended to VIIIth degree Aeropagus, as indicated in the
outline of the OTO Constitution that Crowley prepared from Reuss'
days.

2. we went through all that during Grady's lifetime.  Germer did
something similar during Crowley's later years.  A notice was given
that all who had made a known claim to continuing in or being in OTO
had to formally register that claim with OTO, unless already in the
records.  That was published in the OTO Newsletter and copies of that
particular issue were directly mailed to Metzger, Grant and Motta.
Metzger had cut off replies earlier, and I had tried to reestablish
communication with him, without success.  Metzger's case was complex
in that we knew he had dealings with Germer, that he had held an
election of his own without notice and that some papers describing his
situation had not yet surfaced.  Nothing from that, even though we
sent an "ambassador" to visit Gaste House Rose.  With Motta, similar,
except that Motta would from time to time send letters back or replied
in a no-negotiation manner.  Grant was sort of casual about the whole
thing, half friendly, half indifferent and known to have been expelled
by Germer.  We looked for survivals of Hurachocha's OTOA and didn't
find anything that could demonstrate continuity or initiation.  Same
with the Danes, Italians, Australians and South Africans.  The
situation in Germany was documented and clearly a situation of
splitting off a separate organization following the Pansophia movement
and the creation of F.'.S.'.  The Franco-Haitian's were clearly a
reconstruction, like the modern Golden Dawn groups, as were many
others.  The Russian OTO affiliates in St. Petersburg had dispersed
with the revolution, effectively ending anything left of that line
with the death of Count Orloff.  There were several others.  As many
as we could find, with either claims or some form of possibility, we
put on the complimentary mailing list for the OTO Newsletter,
including the "register now" issue that was required by incorporation
-- the call to register was for a claim, not a final ruling on in or
out.
   After Grady died, I wrote to Grant expressly advising him that I,
personally, but not OTO in fact, would attempt to get him or a proxy
on his behalf a hearing before the assembled IXth's to consider a
possible annulment or reactivation in time to vote.  No promise
possible of outcome, and I made that clear in my letter.  He didn't
take me up on that one.  Motta had gone through the court case with
us, following discovery of additional documents and a close read of
his correspondence with Germer.  By then it was obvious to us that
Motta had never been an OTO member, regardless of claims made after
Germer died.  In the court case, we introduced the returned copy of
the OTO Newsletter, the one giving notice to formally file a claim.
It appeared sealed and had been returned by Motta, apparently
unopened.  It was quite a surprise when that was opened for the case
and discovered to be in some disarray.  It had been opened earlier and
resealed to make it appear as though it had never been seen.  Metzger
was notified in a similar manner to Grant.  No others with any
evidential claim to previous membership and continuing claim had
passed the earlier effort to establish who's in and who's out.  Some
US OTO members from the old Agape days were similarly contacted
earlier and declined to continue.  Others, like AMORC, had severed and
even attempted to conceal past connection.

Put simply, we did contact all those people, the most notable a second
time near but before the election.  Every registered OTO member with a
known address got the Magickal Link with the election information in
it as well.  Complimentary copies of that ML went to still others.

>And.. has it been a source of contention with you that HB placed
>Scriven as Xº and not you or even Lon Milo? 

No, why would it be?  The only concern I could have in the matter was
that OTO do well by the decision.  The test of time has long passed
and been passed.  Naturally, "what if" vapors around the mind at times
like that.  That never rose to contention and faded out as vapors do.

I sympathize with St. Augustine in this.  When he was to be made a
bishop, he fled the country.  They tracked him down and forced the
mantle on him, rendering him ultimately into one of the great
"Doctors" of the old Church of Aeon past.   Consider: If somebody
wants one of these ranking positions, that's not a good sign for
merit.  It's damn hard work and no thanks.  Some who can do well in
such office also seek it.  Those who fully understand what it entails
usually try to avoid it, save only that they except when the good of
the Order requires it.  Wanting and willing are two different things.
Nobody with foreknowledge and a right mind would smply want such a
thing, except to fail in it.  Willing to do the work, under the duty,
is often difficult to distinguish from wanting the office, even in the
mind of the candidate.  That's a tough one to assess before hand.

93 93/93
Bill


Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ec13cbac!not-for-mail
From: heidrick@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Bill Breeze expelled.. well kinda..
Reply-To: heidrick@well.com
Message-ID: <40851a2a.5112130@news.west.earthlink.net>
References:  <407bc425.2671533@news.west.earthlink.net>  <407d1a94.3870334@news.west.earthlink.net>  <40810525.4729636@news.west.earthlink.net>  <40825b29.4178491@news.west.earthlink.net> 
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 103
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:10:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.44.226
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1082466627 209.165.44.226 (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:10:27 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:10:27 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:372132

93,

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:34:02 -0400, Concerned Thelemite
 wrote:


>I also have a fraternal question for you... 
>
>For the OTO to claim that it is a fraternal/sororal organization, it
>must employ practices that would deem itself as such...

OTO is a religious entity, although members below VIIth need not
committ to that as their personal religious affiliation in all cases.
The fraternal/sororital aspect of OTO may therefore not be within your
experience.

>Being a member of three regular Masonic bodies, for over 13 years in
>the US, I have never witnessed anyone being put on suspension, or
>being expelled from any Grand or local Lodge or body for anything less
>than a conviction of a felony. Hence no longer being a "free man".

I can't speak for Masonry, but I've known cases of suspension and
expulsion from Masonry for other reasons:  Not paying dues, joining an
excluded organization, being unruly, abusing the reputation of
Masonry, immorality, being charged with a crime and a host of other
issues may lead to such.  OTO has similar issues with misconduct.

>Fraternity and sorority exist for the sole purpose of their
>definitions. Being displaced at the whims of a Grand Master or even a
>Worshipful Master is something unheard of. 

That bit about "...definitions" doesn't parse for me.
Otherwise, that does happen in Masonry, but it is something that
should not happen according to my very limited knowledge of  the rules
of Masonry.  It never happens in OTO.  Although suspension in time of
the essence issues may be done, expulsion is always by review of a
case in a judicial session (more than one person deciding on issues),
never exclusively by one person in OTO.  Procedures of appeal to the
Grand Tribunal are available in OTO.  Reasonable defense right is
mandated.

>In my opinion, for HB/Bill Breeze, to be able to expell people from
>this order for disagreements with his views is heresy and outlandish
>for an organization claiming to be fraternal..

Worse.  It's fiction.  Doesn't happen.  Don't confuse blame cast by
the disgruntled with what actually takes place.

>Their are many cases of the comment above, which I am assured you are
>fully versed in. Graeb, Cornelius(almost), poor treatment of Reese...
>the list goes on.. .. 

I am very well acquainted with the history in OTO of those
individuals.  The first two were given review and options in issues by
the Aeropagus, Grand Tribunal and Supreme Council over a period of
years.  At least 20 people heard case discussions and rendered opinion
in those cases.  C.L.Reese (Ebony) never had such an experience,,
being on good report until he passed away.   I will not discuss cases,
but one is out, one is in and the other deceased.

>And not to be confrontational...

What's that mean?

>>Nonsense.  Phyllis had and has limited and circumstantial authority
>>just as others do and did have.
>
>Phyllis was actually a full IXº, and not provisional, as was Lon Milo,
>yourself, Graeb, Ripple,Dowling, Morton, and of course  Parsons.

We were all full IXth's after the instant of Grady's death.  That was
the provision, that the "provisional IXth's" became full when Grady
died, until then IXth's under limitation of authority granted by Grady
from time to time.  The former provisional IXth's all were assessed
dues anniversaries starting with the date of Grady's death, in accord
with the documents signed by Grady in each case.  HPSmith was never
provisional.

>Per Grady: "Owing to the fact that the seven members of the Council
>are the whole ninth degree accepted in the Order just now."
>May 1979

?  What would that have to do with 1985 e.v.?

>The council consisted of the above mentioned names including Grady and
>excluding Seckler and Parsons at that time. 

? They came in and served later, after acceptance of the incorporated
form of the Order.   Actually, Seckler was on board at the time of the
incorporation and so was Parsons-Smith.

>These are not my words, they are a just a restatement of fact. 
>As you seem to want to get the "record" straight, I figured I would
>give you a hand.. 

Look like your words to me, and rather disjunct in some instances to
the facts and the usage. 

Bye, bye.   This isn't on topic for alt.magick, as near as I can tell.

93 93/93
Bill