Discussion:
The Gary Steward Affair
(too old to reply)
m***@gmail.com
2009-05-12 19:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It is quite evident that some sloppy financial procedures were in
effect before and during the "Gary Steward" affair."

I was an officer of a not for profit organization in my home
state.Two bonded financial officers had to sign checks for them to be
valid and the bank to accept them. The two by being bonded insured if
they tried any financial manipulations,the bonding company would make
good.

Each state has laws pretaining to corporations,profit and non profit.
I don't know what is required in California. I do know that detailed
financial statements had to be made by the club I was in to both state
and federal. We were incorporated.

If such sound business practice had been in place at the time of GLS's
removal the financial mess could have been avoided. At the time they
even ask for a special donation from members to cover the shortfall.
At the time I wrote a letter to CB and the GM expressing the same
thoughts as are contained in this post. No response from either.

It is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. If GLS had broken any
laws the GL of AMORC would have had him in jail pronto. As the old
saying goes,"There is enough blame to go around."
J
"" <x>
2009-05-13 01:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
It is quite evident that some sloppy financial procedures were in
effect before and during the "Gary Steward" affair."
I was an officer of a not for profit organization in my home
state.Two bonded financial officers had to sign checks for them to be
valid and the bank to accept them. The two by being bonded insured if
they tried any financial manipulations,the bonding company would make
good.
J
You make a good point. AMORC did bond the officers. But that type of bond
DOES NOT COVER independent contractors such as Gary Stewart's financial
advisors. The money Gary Stewart sent out of the country was returned. When
the bonding company sorted this out, they filed suit against AMORC to get
their money back, after they had paid the claim. The trust funds provided
the shield that made everyone untouchable.

Keranos
gls
2009-05-13 21:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Melanaigis;

On May 12, 8:27 pm, "***@teranews.com" <x> wrote:

<snip>
Post by "" <x>
AMORC did bond the officers. But that type of bond
DOES NOT COVER independent contractors such as Gary Stewart's financial
advisors. The money Gary Stewart sent out of the country was returned. When
the bonding company sorted this out, they filed suit against AMORC to get
their money back, after they had paid the claim. The trust funds provided
the shield that made everyone untouchable.
INA, which is the insurance company that was covering AMORC at the
time did not file suit against AMORC to get their money back. They
never paid the claim. You obviously haven't read the documents. Either
that or you are intentionally misrepresenting them. They filed suit
because they felt AMORC commited fraud when they made that claim and
they went for AMORC's throat and got it.

Anyway, here goes. I will copy one of many pertinent documents in
part, but anyone can read the document in its entirety if they choose
to do so. See case number 700028, Law Offices of Wallace B. Adams,
attorneys for Intervenor Insurance Company of North America.
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of INA's motion for
leave to file a complaint in intervention and to continue trial. Date:
June 3, 1993.

"II Summary of Facts and Procedural History: In April, 1990, plaintiff
the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae
Crucis, Inc. (SGL-AMORC") filed a complaint against defendant Gary
Stewart which alleged various fraud and fiduciary claims arising from
the alleged transfer and conversion of more than three (3) million
dollars of SGL-AMORC funds ... In October 1990, plaintiff filed its
Proof of Loss with INA for alleged losses sustained by SGL-AMORC from
the purpoted conversion of funds arising out of a $250,000 and
$500,000 wire transfer of funds. ... While there is some dispute
between SGL-AMORC and INA as to what occurred between October, 1990
and January, 1993, in regard to requests for information and
documentation to substantiate the alleged defalcations, and the delay
on SGL-AMORC's part in responding, the claim was not actively pursued
by SGL-AMORC until the first week of January, 1993. It appears that
SGL-AMORC was primarily interested in prosecuting its lawsuit rather
than dealing with its claim on the bond. In any event in January,
1993, SGL-AMORC requested that INA consent to its proposed settlement
with Silicon Valley Bank in the instant litigation. After exchanges of
rather acrimonious correspondence between counsel for SGL-AMORC and
INA, counsel met in early March, 1993, to review the matter, at which
time INA requested a complete copy of the Dean Whitter account files
as the $250,000 wire transfer was made by Dean Whitter. While
different versions of the Dean Whitter file were produced depending on
their origin, Dean Whitter produced its files on or about April 21,
1993, as a result of the request of SGL-AMORC. However, the files
produced by Dean Whitter at that time contained about one half the
documents that were produced by them in response to a supoena by
Silicon Valley Bank in the instant litigation. The significance of the
Dean Whitter documents or the lack thereof, is who actually authorized
the transfer of the funds and who had knowledge of the transfer...
After receipt of the various versions of the Dean Whitter documents
and further review of the documents and depositions in the litigation,
INA's counsel met with Gary Stewart, the alleged defalcator, to review
the entire matter and attempt to reach a conclusion regarding the
conflicting evidence and testimony. INA determined it could not
resolve the conflicting evidence and that it would appropriate for the
trier of the facts to resolve the conflicts in a declaratory relief
action. Consequently, on May 14, 1993, INA's counsel requested SGL-
AMORC's counsel to not oppose its motion to intervene, continue the
trial date, and consent to limited discovery. INA's request has been
denied by SGL-AMORC. Given this rapidly impending trial date, INA now
moves to intervene and protect it's interests ..."

You can clearly see that INA didn't pay out any claim to AMORC and
that they had reason to believe that amorc submitted a fraudulent
claim by attempting to hide information about who knew about the
transfers and who actually signed off on them. To make a long story
short, I signed the transfer document to wire $500,000 to Pandora
Advisory Trust to be paid as a fee to our advisors for their services
when those services were performed. Pandora Advisory trust was not an
AMORC trust and the authorization to pay that fee was made by and with
full knowledge of the SGL board at the annual meeting in March. AMORC
lost all recourse to retrieve the funds in January, 1991 when they
sent Pandora Advisory trust their IRS forms and thereby declaring the
$500,000 amount was indeed fees paid out for services -- as was
intended. As it turned out, the $250,000 fee paid to Pandora in
February, 1990 was an unauthorized payment. But guess what, I'm not
the one who wired that amount. Burnam Schaa was as was shown on the
Dean Whitter documents that AMORC was trying to keep hidden. And
presto, once INA found all this out, AMORC settled their suit with
everyone as quick as they could. INA got a tidy sum in that settlement
and AMORC got nothing.

Incidentally, you're misrepresenting the SGL account and proposed
trust in Andorra as well, but that's another topic if someone is
interested in learning about can find it in the alt.amorc archives as
well.

Why don't you do everyone a favor and if you have to obsessively bring
this bullshit up, at least have the courtesy to quit twisting things
around, quoting me out of context, and just flat out lying about
something you haven't a clue about. If people want to know what
happened, and they have a right to if they want, they can search
alt.amorc back for years and find everything said over and over and
over again ...

Ok, back to Dionysus. Do you want to tell us why you think
Rosicrucianism is embedded in that mystery? Or are you as uncertain
about it as you are of the 1990 lawsuit?
Post by "" <x>
Keranos
gls

Loading...