Discussion:
Mrs. Myra Kiimahleto's lawsuit against AMORC
(too old to reply)
slc
2009-11-02 00:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Take a look to Mrs. Myra Kiimalehto's lawsuit against AMORC

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,800092,00.html
gls
2009-11-02 04:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Mago/slc;
Post by slc
Take a look to Mrs. Myra Kiimalehto's lawsuit against AMORC
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,800092,00.html
Considering that case consumed several reams of paper being converted
into legal documents, the article doesn't say very much and is even
less informative. That case is loosely related to your post the other
day regarding the police raid on amorc back in the early days. I know
Angel would like to think there is something significant regarding
these instances that puts a bad light on amorc and hsl, but there
isn't. There's a big difference between making accusations and filing
lawsuits and actually proving merit in those accusations. With the
instances you cite (and with many other accusations made during
amorc's history) there is no merit.

When amorc was founded, a number of people attended the formation
meeting. All of those attending invested (and I use that term very
loosely) $100 each to fund the initial establishment of amorc. One
lady, and I forget her name offhand, later decided she wanted out and
wanted her money back. HSL promptly gave it to her and a couople of
days later, in spite of the monetary return, she informed the police
she had been denied the return of the funds -- which prompted the
raid, and the Sun's retraction to their first article a few days
later. In that initial meeting was Thor Kilmalehto who also invested
$100. He remained and later became on of hsl's officers until hsl
moved the operation briefly to california, then to florida, and it
wasn't until 1927 when hsl move amorc back to california that thor
reappeared and once again became an officer. However, almost
immediately after forming, amorc's status as an organization changed
from that of a shareholder corporation to a religion and then to that
of an educational organization -- both of which were considered to be
not for profit in that it was existing for the public benefit.

A non-profit is defined as being an organization that doesn't
distribute its excess funds to owners or shareholders either while it
exists or after its dissolution. Rather, they use them to continue to
pursue its stated purpose -- or to donate them to another non-profit
of similar purpose if the original corporation dissolves. Myra's case
against amorc was that she was owed a percentage (I forget what that
percentage was as it has been almost 30 years since I reviewed the
court documents) of the profits from 1915 to 1948 as she was an
inherited shareholder. Naturally, she didn't get very far since amorc
was only considered a profit making business for maybe two or three
months and that was because the founders were at a loss as to how to
initially classify amorc.

But reading through the depositions, it becomes obvious there was some
serious bad blood between myra and amorc and when it comes right down
to it, it appears it is because she thought her husband should have
been Imperator rather than hsl. That's what I gleaned from reading
about the case, and it is also what ralph told me about it.

gls
Knows ALL
2010-01-16 23:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This was a complete waste of time (no pun intended). Bad article. Thank
The Cosmic it was very short! :-)

Me

-------------------------------------------
Post by slc
Take a look to Mrs. Myra Kiimalehto's lawsuit against AMORC
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,800092,00.html
Loading...