Discussion:
Gary Stewart's removal
(too old to reply)
"" <x>
2009-05-11 23:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gary Stewart's ouster

It is difficult to sort out what happened because much was hidden and a lot
of disinformation was fed out. Gary Stewart likes to change his story
depending on the immediate objective. But if you search his postings on this
newsgroup, this is what happened.

Gary Stewart was removed from office because he and his financial advisors
devised a scheme for AMORC to borrow three and a half million dollars
against AMORC's assets and place the money into trust funds Gary Stewart and
his financial advisors controlled. The financial advisors took $750,000 from
one account without the knowledge and approval of the AMORC board of
directors. The Board discovered the plan and tried to stop the transfer of
three million dollars to the account in Andorra. When they found out the
money was already there and they did not control that account, they asked
Gary Stewart to return the money. He refused to return it. The Board of
Directors managed to freeze the money in the trust, before it was taken like
the money in the Pittsburgh trust. After litigation, they were able to get
that money back. That's why Gary Stewart was removed from office and charged
with embezzlement.

The problem began when Gary Stewart's hired some self styled financial
advisors who did not have the usual credentials or track record expected for
financial advisors. Gary Stewart would not answer specifically what their
qualifications were. Financial advisors are usually CPA's or CFA's. CPA's
and CFA's have ethical standards that they are expected to live up to or
they can lose their accreditations. Self styled financial advisors have no
standards to adhere to. This becomes important because American courts frown
on businesses that don't hire professionals with the proper credentials. If
a business gets burned by self styled experts, the court's attitude is they
deserved it.

Another pertinent issue is that Gary Stewart entered into an ambiguous
contract. Why did his financial advisors write an ambiguous contract? Why
sign an ambiguous contract? A vague contract, where performance and
consideration are not clear, is unenforceable. It can prevent any kind of
successful litigation when people do not perform as expected.

These "financial advisors" set up two trust accounts, one in Pittsburgh
where they lived and one in the country of Andorra.. Gary Stewart would not
answer why they set up trust funds instead of regular checking accounts. In
a trust fund, the money is controlled by the trustees and not by the owners
of the money. Gary Stewart would not answer who the trustees were. But we
can discover this by his description of the events that happened. The board
of directors would not have approved an account where Gary Stewart and his
financial advisors could raid the accounts whenever they pleased, while the
board had no control over the accounts. They certainly would not have
borrowed three and a half million dollars and placed the money in such an
account in a foreign country if they understood the details of the account.

Officers of a non profit corporation are not allowed to spend money any way
they please. For large amounts, like three million dollars, approval must be
given by the board of directors or officers. To get around the restrictions
the financial advisors set up trust funds instead of regular bank accounts.
That way they could spend the money without any oversight. If the board of
directors allows a chief executive to spend as he pleases, the corporation
can lose its non profit status; receipts would become taxable; and the
officers can be held personally responsible for any taxes due.

-------------------

Gary Stewart wrote:
at the Grand Master's meeting that was held in
Morocco. In that meeting it was decided I should get more involved in
banking matters regarding the corporation in San Jose. Whether I was
being set up, I don't think so, but it eventually turned out that way
in my opinion. Anyway, I put together a financial advisory team and
began looking into the feasibility of greater member benefits

++++++++++++

This shows Gary Stewart was taking financial control, even though he tries
to shift blame to the Board. It also shows the financial advisors were his
advisors.

--------

Gary Stewart wrote:

"...we decided to establish a line of
credit in a San Jose, California bank. We did this to the tune of 8.5
million dollars but decided to only transfer 3.0million to the Andorran
account and 500 thousand to a Pittsburgh account which was intended to pay
fees involving some other projects we were developing. The transfer of the
funds were to go into our accounts, but would only be used as needed and
signed off by the board. I initiated the transfer and then went off to
Edinburgh for the annual Grand Master's meeting. As I left for the airport,
two directors went to the bank and claimed they had no knowledge of the loan
or the transfer of funds. The bank officials looked at them and effectively
told then they were crazy as all directors had signed the corporate
resolution to borrow, one director had co-signed the authorization to
transfer, and both directors that claimed they knew nothing had sat in about
two weeks of meetings with myself, the financial advisory team, and the bank
officials involved in our loan. So, the bank said they wouldn't stop the
transfer of the loan unless I also agreed. By the time I got to Scotland,
the funds were in the Andorran bank. I refused to return the transfer until
I knew what was going on..."

++++++++++++

This tells us Gary Stewart was a trustee on the account and the Board of
Directors were not trustees, and did not control the account.

As for Gary Stewart not understanding what was going on, it is simple. He
had obligated AMORC to repay a loan of three million dollars and sent the
money to a trust fund in a foreign country which he controlled. AMORC wanted
the money back. He refused to return it; as he clearly stated on this
newsgroup.

In Stewart's version above HE REFUSED TO RETURN THE MONEY. That's where the
embezzlement charge came in.

----------------------------

Gary Stewart wrote:
"(remember, it's a trust account of which monies are paid out of when
services are performed) prior to a proposal and contract."
++++++++++

In fact, money was NOT paid out when services were performed, as events
show. The money in the Pittsburgh trust was simply taken. This WAS NOT
APPROVED by the board of directors.

-------------------------

In another version Stewart wrote:

"....The only time *I* was asked to return the funds was during the newly
convened board meeting in San Jose when all gm's were added to the
board. I voted no on the proposal to return the funds but was out
voted. I made it clear I disagreed, but would do as the majority
determined. I called the bank that night to get it when it opened
(there is a 10 hour time difference) only to find the bank was closed
for a banking holiday (Maundy Thursday) and would not open until the
following Tuesday. When I told the board, Raab pipes in that there is
no such banking holiday in Europe and Schaa chimes in for a call for a
"vote of confidence" ..."

+++++++++++++++

In this version, he wants us to believe the directors DID NOT ask for the
money back when they discovered he'd sent it out of the country.

-------------------

Gary Stewart wrote:
Yes, there was a contract. That money would have been returned as was
the funds sent to the SGL account in Andorra had AMORC not blown it
when filing their 1990 taxes. They stated that money were fees paid to
the individuals concerned. They shouldn't have said that because it
wasn't true. By then, I was out of the picture and kept my opinion to
myself and the money apparently became fees paid.

++++++++++++++++

Here Stewart acknowledges that the money taken by his financial advisors WAS
NOT A PAYMENT and was not earned. He also makes it clear the money SHOULD
HAVE BEEN RETURNED. The problem was not that AMORC filed a tax return; the
problem was that his financial advisors took ALL OF THE MONEY in the
Pittsburgh trust.

---------
Gary Stewart wrote:
"If I was being conned, which I think it obvious I was, I would say it was
definitely more on the side of AMORC than Pandora."
+++++++++++++

Here Gary Stewart asserts that HE was the one who was conned! This is so
absurd I can't even comment on it.

----------
Fianancial shenanigans as in having a corporate resolution to borrow
and transfering money from one AMORC account to another? No matter how
you spin it, the fact remains that no funds at any time ever left
AMORC accounts except those that were used to pay fees approved by
corporate resolution and all financial dealings had total corporate
approval by the directors.
+++++++++++++++

This statement is remarkably absurd, even for Gary Stewart. ALL OF THE MONEY
in the Pittsburgh trust WAS TAKEN. As shown above GARY STEWART KNOWS IT WAS
NOT A PAYMENT; neither was it approved by the board of directors.

As for "total corporate approval", If that were true, there would not have
been any problems; he would not have been removed from office.


One final word; Gary Stewart claims he was thrown out of office because of a
conspiracy run by Christian Bernard. Despite the allegations by Gary
Stewart, there is no sign of Christian Bernard in any of this.

Christian Bernard did not devise the plan to set up trust funds.

Christian Bernard did not borrow money to put in the trust funds.

Christian Bernard did not steal the money.

Unless Christian Bernard is some powerful bocor, who controlled Gary Stewart
telepathically from ten thousand miles away, he doesn't appear to have had
ANYTHING to do with Gary Stewart's removal from office.


Keranos Melanaigis
Malgwyn
2009-05-12 10:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's friggin' "Mail Order Mysticism"; i.e. all fraud to begin with.
So long as AMORC subscribers got their precious monographs in the
mail, who really cared? From looking at the various incorporation
documents, it looks to me like there was some serious restructuring.
I know some of that was motivated by changes in California law, but
they could have set up like any benevolent fraternity, instead they
moved offshore, which means they were protecting profits from taxation
and scrutiny. Post Stewart AMORC is very clandestine in the U.S., so
If Stewart was bad, the people who replaced him were as bad or
worse.

Malgwyn
"" <x>
2009-05-12 11:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think CB restructured the organization because he was upset with the
American legal system and doesn't understand it. They failed to prosecute
anyone and the money from one of the trusts was never returned.
Recent events involving bank failures illustrate the American view towards
white collar crime. It's tolerated. The American system is designed to
bankrupt everyone involved in a problem and make the lawyers rich.
CB is probably more comfortable with European systems.

Keranos Melanaigis

+++++++++++++++++

"Malgwyn" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5e3017b7-fd89-4ded-b153-***@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
From looking at the various incorporation
Post by Malgwyn
documents, it looks to me like there was some serious restructuring.
I know some of that was motivated by changes in California law, but
they could have set up like any benevolent fraternity, instead they
moved offshore,
Malgwyn
Seawolf
2009-05-12 20:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Let's see, Stewart sends some money overseas and you are doing
everything you can think of to make him out to be the baddest of all
bad guys. CB gets control and sends EVERYTHING overseas and not only
do you think it's a good thing, you even try to justify his actions by
saying he had to do it because the American legal system is corrupt.

I was wrong about you Keranos. You aren't a troll. Your're and idiot.

Seawolf
Post by "" <x>
I think CB restructured the organization because he was upset with the
American legal system and doesn't understand it. They failed to prosecute
anyone and the money from one of the trusts was never returned.
Recent events involving bank failures illustrate the American view towards
white collar crime. It's tolerated. The American system is designed to
bankrupt everyone involved in a problem and make the lawyers rich.
CB is probably more comfortable with European systems.
Keranos Melanaigis
+++++++++++++++++
From looking at the various incorporation
Post by Malgwyn
documents, it looks to me like there was some serious restructuring.
I know some of that was motivated by changes in California law, but
they could have set up like any benevolent fraternity, instead they
moved offshore,
Malgwyn
Ben Scaro
2009-05-12 23:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This was posted by 'Trident' also I think known as 'Addersix' on
alt.amorc back in 2000. Subsequent nosings around tend to confirm that
this poster knew what he/she was writing about back then, and it's
still worth mulling over.

"Well, there's the difference. Evidence either points, *seems* to
point, or
doesn't point depending upon which fence you're sitting on. FWIW,
those US
law enforcement agencies that took a gander at the situation
(accusations
of embezzlement of three million dollars does raise a few eyebrows
amongst
the crime fighter elite) came up with a rather novel approach. They
figured that if they discovered Stewart *didn't* commit any crime,
then
they *wouldn't* file any criminal charges. What's that you say? No
criminal charges were filed? Even after the IRS camped out at the
AMORC
headquarters for nearly a year? Then either Stewart outsmarted
everyone
and is living the life of Riley or he was innocent of those things of
which he was accused."

Another thing worth mulling over. There have been stories circulating
for years that at the court appearance, CB allegedly turned to GLS and
said out of earshot of most, 'I know you did not do it but I always
get my way.'

The fellow who claims this is I believe not particularly keen on
either side in the dispute.

Ben
"" <x>
2009-05-13 01:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ben Scaro" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fc748953-a951-43d8-9ce1-***@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
There have been stories circulating
Post by Ben Scaro
for years that at the court appearance, CB allegedly turned to GLS and
said out of earshot of most, 'I know you did not do it but I always
get my way.'
The fellow who claims this is I believe not particularly keen on
either side in the dispute.
Ben
Gary Stewart started the rumor that CB said in court that he knew he wasn't
guilty of anything. It was posted on Cathari's site. Gary Stewart has a
definite bias in the dispute. After reading his contradictions about what
happened, I don't find him a reliable source. You show the same disregard
for the truth Stewart exhibits.

Keranos
Ben Scaro
2009-05-13 09:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
  There have been stories circulating
Post by Ben Scaro
for years that at the court appearance, CB allegedly turned to GLS and
said out of earshot of most, 'I know you did not do it but I always
get my way.'
The fellow who claims this is I believe not particularly keen on
either side in the dispute.
Ben
Gary Stewart started the rumor that CB said in court that he knew he wasn't
guilty of anything. It was posted on Cathari's site. Gary Stewart has a
definite bias in the dispute. After reading his contradictions about what
happened, I don't find him a reliable source. You show the same disregard
for the truth Stewart exhibits.
Keranos
The gentleman who heard this is not a friend or ally of Stewart,
though he was a supporter at the time. This is nothing to do with
Stewart's recollections.

That gentleman maintains, despite his later disillusion with Stewart,
that Bernard did say this.

As it's from a third party, it would appear to back up Stewart's
version.

Ben
"" <x>
2009-05-13 10:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If you produce sworn testimony as well as character references, I might
consider it as true.
As it is, you haven't even given us the man's name. Pardon me if I see this
for what it is, more idiotic distraction from the issue, of very dubious
truth or relevance.
To get back to the relevant issue; someone approached this forum wanting to
know what happened back in 90. I gave some minor bits of information.
Stewart, you and the other psychophants took over the thread in order to
bury any information that might be posted. This gave you a chance to pose as
some deep researcher into rosicrucian history, discussing more irrelevant
tripe, which is of no interest to most people on this forum. I reposted some
of Gary Stewart's versions of the events under a new thread.
Since I used Stewart's own words, I don't see why you are upset.
Keranos
+++++++++++++++
The gentleman who heard this is not a friend or ally of Stewart,
though he was a supporter at the time. This is nothing to do with
Stewart's recollections.

That gentleman maintains, despite his later disillusion with Stewart,
that Bernard did say this.

As it's from a third party, it would appear to back up Stewart's
version.

Ben
Ben Scaro
2009-05-13 13:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.
Post by "" <x>
Since I used Stewart's own words, I don't see why you are upset.
Keranos
For those questioning this matter.

The third party (who does not wish to get involved) and the IRS (now
there's a name for you re: an org which knows a *little* bit about
corporate malfeasance) is fairly good evidence that there wasn't
anything which pointed to Stewart.

They had a year at AMORC to find anything fishy after all. They
didn't.

Ben
Post by "" <x>
+++++++++++++++
The gentleman who heard this is not a friend or ally of Stewart,
though he was a supporter at the time.  This is nothing to do with
Stewart's recollections.
That gentleman maintains, despite his later disillusion with Stewart,
that Bernard did say this.
As it's from a third party, it would appear to back up Stewart's
version.
Ben
Ben Scaro
2009-05-13 14:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "" <x>
To get back to the relevant issue; someone approached this forum wanting to
know what happened back in 90. I gave some minor bits of information.
Stewart, you  and the other psychophants took over the thread
Mr Gleason, if you look at the top of this thread (the one we are in)
you will see that it was your good self who started it ;-)

Anyone familiar with Usenet knows that it is not moderated. No one
can take over a thread.

It is quite possible that you are losing an argument, but that's a
different thing from having lost control of the thread.

Pleased to be able to help you with your confusion.

Ben


in order to
Post by "" <x>
bury any information that might be posted. This gave you a chance to pose as
some deep researcher into rosicrucian history, discussing more irrelevant
tripe, which is of no interest to most people on this forum. I reposted some
of Gary Stewart's versions of the events under a new thread.
Since I used Stewart's own words, I don't see why you are upset.
Keranos
+++++++++++++++
The gentleman who heard this is not a friend or ally of Stewart,
though he was a supporter at the time.  This is nothing to do with
Stewart's recollections.
That gentleman maintains, despite his later disillusion with Stewart,
that Bernard did say this.
As it's from a third party, it would appear to back up Stewart's
version.
Ben
gls
2009-05-13 19:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Melanaigis;

On May 13, 5:51 am, "***@teranews.com" <x> wrote:

<snip>
Post by "" <x>
To get back to the relevant issue; someone approached this forum wanting to
know what happened back in 90. I gave some minor bits of information.
Stewart, you  and the other psychophants ...
Don't you mean "sycophant"? But since you're the self-styled Greek
scholar, you must know what you're talking about.

I didn't know what a "psychophant" was so I looked it up. Apparently
they're a psychobilly band out of Fresno, California. I'm not sure
what kind of music psychobilly is, but that's what it says.

But ... the relevant issue was that someone approached this forum
*asking* if someone could send him copies of the court documents and
then *stating* that he was interested in knowing what went on in 1990.
He didn't ask for your opinion or my opinion. It sounded to me like he
wanted to figure it out for himself -- which, I think, is a good
thing.

<snip>
Post by "" <x>
I reposted some
of Gary Stewart's versions of the events under a new thread.
Since I used Stewart's own words, I don't see why you are upset.
Why not just let interersted folks look it up for themselves? There is
plenty of discussion on the matter going back many years. That way
they can follow a conversation in proper context rather than reading
your self-serving interpretation.
Post by "" <x>
Keranos
<snip>

gls
gls
2009-05-13 19:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Ben;

I never knew you were one of the Psychophants out of Fresno,
California (see my other post). One of these days you're going to have
to tell me what style of music psychobilly is ...

On May 12, 6:51 pm, Ben Scaro <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
Another thing worth mulling over.  There have been stories circulating
for years that at the court appearance, CB allegedly turned to GLS and
said out of earshot of most, 'I know you did not do it but I always
get my way.'
I don't recall Christian ever saying anything to me in the courthouse.
But he may have and I either didn't hear him or have forgotten about
it.

He did say something like that, though, but it was in my office the
day before he filed suit against me. It was just the two of us and
after the vote of no confidence. Christian approached me and said that
he and the Grand Masters knew I hadn't embezzled any money. He also
said, in that conversation, that he never loses. Since the subject of
embezzlement and a lawsuit had never come up before, I thought it was
a rather interesting comment to make.

Now, almost 20 years later, I occasionally wonder what it is he thinks
he won.
The fellow who claims this is I believe not particularly keen on
either side in the dispute.
As I said, CB may have said something to me that I have forgotten or
didn't hear. The courtroom was very crowded during this time and I'm
sure a lot of things were said and a lot overheard.
Ben
gls
Ben Scaro
2009-05-14 11:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
Hi Ben;
I never knew you were one of the Psychophants out of Fresno,
California (see my other post). One of these days you're going to have
to tell me what style of music psychobilly is ...
Gary

Do you know . . . I did not know that either. But I'm glad I do.

I've never been to Fresno . . . . (sounds like a song title
already . . .)

I'd like to know who 'Trident' or 'Addersix' was (I think it's the
same person). Unlike Mad Bill, he seemed authentic both because he was
'in the know' and a bit cantankerous, rather than just trying to give
that impression but never quite making it.

It's actually more interesting that you don't recall exactly the
courtroom comment, but an earlier one, it seems to indicate this was a
form of phrasing that Bernard was wont to use.

I dont know that CB thinks he got; I keep hearing things about
Nigeria and/or Ghana wanting to go off by themselves. I wonder at the
cultural forces at play, a bit like those behind the split in the
Anglican Communion? If that happened, would that gut AMORC ? I
imagine there's still a big following in South America and I know the
Australian GL under Bindon had a focus on trying to promote the order
in the Philippines and SE Asia generally . . . but not sure how
successful that tactic was . . . SE Asia is a fairly crowded spiritual
market.

Ben
gls
2009-05-16 04:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Ben;
<snip>
Post by Ben Scaro
I've never been to Fresno . . . . (sounds like a song title
already . . .)
I lived there for three years in the 70's.
Post by Ben Scaro
I'd like to know who 'Trident' or 'Addersix' was (I think it's the
same person).
I'd completely forgotten about Trident until you brought him up. That
was me and was the addy I used when I first got onto usenet almost 9
years ago. I only made a handful of posts because shortly after I
changed providers and my new provider didn't carry alt.amorc. It
wasn't until 2006 that I discovered google groups, got back onto
usenet, and began posting as gls with my yahoo address. Sometime last
year, I think, my current provider picked up alt.amorc and I began
posting as ***@blackland.com, but within 2 or 3 months, they dropped
all alt newsgroups so I'm now back with google -- I don't like
accessing usenet this way, but right now I don't have much of a choice
because where I live I have limited access (too expensive to go the
satellite route, and other available providers have much slower
connect speeds -- its 49kps compared to 28).

I've known addersix since just after high school. He can be quite
cantankerous, to put it mildly. He was never a part of amorc but got
interested in 1990 and helped me out a few times behind the scenes.

<snip>
Post by Ben Scaro
It's actually more interesting that you don't recall exactly the
courtroom comment, but an earlier one, it seems to indicate this was a
form of phrasing that Bernard was wont to use.
You know, I'm not really surprised that he openly said things like
that. To my way of thinking, everyone will lose at times and everyone
wins at times. To claim you always win indicates an emotional
insecurity. I think he was in competition with his father, but that's
just my opinion.
Post by Ben Scaro
I  dont know that CB thinks he got; I keep hearing things about
Nigeria and/or Ghana wanting to go off by themselves.  
I haven't heard that, but the OMCE is very strong in Ghana as is the
Ghanian Order of the Rose Cross (effectively the CR+C). Over the
years, we've pretty much left amorc Nigeria alone as I have a lot of
faith in Kenneth Idiodi and have always trusted he would do what is
best for the Nigerian Rosicrucians. Although we have recently began
forming OMCE groups in Nigeria; under the leadership from Ghana and
the OMCE and CR+C groups in Ghana have been there since the early 90's
-- we're all getting along quite nicely. As to going off by
themselves, we have to remember that the way hsl set up amorc, he gave
it a life expectancy of 108 years to exist as a centralized order.
That egregore is very strong in the mindset of amorcians and will be
hard to cancel out. Lately I've noticed some really positive things,
at least what I thought to be positive things, in the way the amorc
members are moving amorc in Germany since the last convention they had
there and now the US. Although I never met her, from what I've seen, I
think Julie Scott (I believe that's her name -- the GM of the US) is
really very good for amorc in the US. Maybe a bit to apologetic at
times as she sometimes presents the amorcian style as represented in
the 80's during public interviews, but overall she's done some good
leading. And in France, though not a part of amorc or the CR+C (our CR
+C. We share the same initials), the Cenacle is doing some really good
things and I think will lead the movement there in a very interesting
way.

The bottom line, once us old timers are out of the picture is the time
to tell how successful the movement is and what it does with the
opportunities it is presented with. We'll see.

<snip>
Post by Ben Scaro
and I know the
Australian GL under Bindon had a focus on trying to promote the order
in the Philippines and SE Asia generally . . . but not sure how
successful that tactic was . . . SE Asia is a fairly crowded spiritual
market.
As I said, once the old timers are out of there is the time to measure
amorc's success or failure. The longer the old timers stay, the longer
the future is held back. In my opinion, the Rosicrucian movement was
never intended to be a centralized and dogmatic movement like religion
is. A Rosicrucian is an individual striving to live the ideal and
succeeding in the work. Rosicrucianism is not best represented by an
institution because an institution does not accomplish anything of
spiritual value. Only people do that ...
Post by Ben Scaro
Ben
gls
vacation
2009-05-17 18:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
You know, I'm not really surprised that he openly said things like
that. To my way of thinking, everyone will lose at times and everyone
wins at times. To claim you always win indicates an emotional
insecurity. I think he was in competition with his father, but that's
just my opinion.
"Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - George Lucas, Star Wars
Post by gls
Lately I've noticed some really positive things,
at least what I thought to be positive things, in the way the amorc
members are moving amorc in Germany since the last convention they had
there
gls
I didn't notice nothing positive in German amorc.
mjs129a
2009-05-18 16:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by vacation
"Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - George Lucas, Star Wars
"Only a Sith Lord...."?! That sounds pretty absolute to me. Classic
self refuting statement. Either Obi-Wan is a Sith or he didn't show
up for Philosophy 101.

mjs

"" <x>
2009-05-13 01:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seawolf
Let's see, Stewart sends some money overseas and you are doing
everything you can think of to make him out to be the baddest of all
bad guys. CB gets control and sends EVERYTHING overseas and not only
do you think it's a good thing, you even try to justify his actions by
saying he had to do it because the American legal system is corrupt.
I was wrong about you Keranos. You aren't a troll. Your're and idiot.
Seawolf
============
Seawolf
You exhibit many of the characteristics which E Levi called astral
intoxication. The moral turbulence and attempts at misrepresentation and
deception are obvious.

Keranos
Seawolf
2009-05-13 16:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tinker Bell,

You're pathetic. Still an idiot, but pathetic too. Say, while you're
out there flittering about with your gossamar wings playing astral
inhabitant, why don't you lend a hand to those astronauts fixing the
Hubble. I know you think that will be too mundane for your talents,
but if you do something in the real world it might, I repeat, might
remind you of some things about reality you obviously left behind
before skipping out on your adventure. But try to resist spreading
around that fairy dust of yours like you do here. Otherwise they might
think you're a kook. We don't want them thinking that about you now,
do we? After all, you do have an image to keep.

Seawolf
Post by Seawolf
Seawolf
You exhibit many of the characteristics which E Levi called astral
intoxication. The moral turbulence and attempts at misrepresentation and
deception are obvious.
Keranos
gls
2009-05-13 20:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Melanaigis;
Post by "" <x>
I think CB restructured the organization because he was upset with the
American legal system and doesn't understand it.
<snip>

Restructuring the Order as a result of ignorance isn't a very smart
thing to do. It was restructured because he *did* understand the
American legal system. After all, he did hire an American law firm to
do as he wanted and they were retained at least two weeks before
events took place.

You need to think things through a bit more, Melanaigis. Either that
or stop trying to interpret things you read. You may think you have a
handle on what happened, but you don't. You come across as being one
who is more enraptured with the idea you're in the know rather than
actually being there.
Post by "" <x>
Keranos Melanaigis
gls
melapibus
2009-05-13 23:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I was the one who submitted the request for court documents.

I've been researching and studying a lot, and my conclusion is,
regardless of the administrative aspects of an Order, what matters is
the mystical work.

I've met excellent mystics from both AMORC and CR+C, and several other
Orders as well.

I am beginning to realize that the energy I spent trying to understand
the worldly and profane nature Mystica Orders could have been better
used in practicing the Great Work itself.

I will not judge or give an opinion about who is right or wrong.

At the state humanity is in, EVERYONE is wrong and that is what
Rosicrucianism is all about: fixing the wrongs in the world,
regardless of what Order one belongs to.

I wish all the best to AMORC and the CR+C and all other Orders that
exist. There are many paths we can follow, and they are there to
provide guidance, each for a unique path.

That is how I see it.

Fabricio.
Loading...