What's the story on former Imperator Gary Stewart ?
Terence2
Can somebody summarize what happened then ?
peace profound
Michael Drummond
> I learned that after 3 years AMORC dropped charges against him.
> Can somebody summarize what happened then ?
> peace profound
long-time member (and very good friend), complete court transcripts from
November 19th, 1990, from the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Santa Clara.
There was also much in the local papers, such as the "Mercury News".
A Rosicrucian is encouraged to be a "Walking question mark" - and not to
believe anything that is not personally experienced. I had heard lots
of rumours, but now I have FACTS!!! I will say no more, except to use
the judge's own words:
"After full consideration of the evidence and points and authorities
submitted by all parties and the oral argument of counsel, it appears
and the court finds that The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and
Mystical Order Rosae Crucis and Donna O'Neill have shown by admissible
evidence and reasonable inference therefrom, not contradicted by other
evidence and inferences, and by matters judicially noticed by this
Court that the following issues are without substantial controversy and
that there is no triable issue as to any material fact with respect thereto:
(1) Defendant Gary L. Stewart was properly removed as a director of the
Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis; and
(2) Defendant Gary L. Stewart was properly removed as President and
Imperator of the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order
Rosae Crucis.
It is there ordered that the foregoing two issues shall be deemed
established in favor of the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and
Mystical Order Rosae Crucis and Donna O'Neill and against defendant
Stewart and all defendants to this action, that no further evidence or
proof thereof shall be required at the trial and that the final judgment
herein shall, in addition to any other matters determined at the trial,
be based upon the issues so established.
(Signed by Ronald M. Whyte, Judge of the Superior Court)"
As for whether "AMORC dropped all charges" thereafter, could it not be
that it was simply a matter of such huge financial problems that were
facing our Noble Order, that it would have been financial suicide for
the Order to continue with further legal issues? The good news is that
the Order has survived this catastrophe, and good has triumphed. We
have a growing membership of sincere, dedicated, and wonderful people,
who strive always to find the true path, and to lead others towards the
"Greater Light". The "Dark Night of the Soul" was followed by the
"Golden Dawn"!
My own personal suspicion is that Gary Stewart may have found himself in
situations far beyond his abilities and experience to handle, and may
have been betrayed by others who had hidden agendas - but, as a "Walking
question mark", one can only speculate, after studying all the evidence.
As I have said before, I wish Gary Stewart well, and if he is able to
help others to find the "Greater Light", then that is Good! So mote it be!
BTW - my interest in all this is as an individual private person, and as
a member of AMORC - and not in any way an "official" comment because of
the office I am so privileged to hold at this time.
You will see my other profound interest and heartfelt desire, to help
others know TRUTH, in my papers on the late John Robinson's books about
Freemasonry, viz. "Born in Blood" and "A Pilgrim's Path" at:
http://users.imag.net/~edm.mdrumins/page6.html
and
http://users.imag.net/~edm.mdrumins/page4.html
Sincerely and fraternally, with best wishes for Peace profound,
Michael Drummond
keranos
> There was also much in the local papers, such as the "Mercury News".
Thanks for admitting there was a well orchestrated smear campaign against
Stewart. Hit peices don't simply appear in newspapers; malicious insiders
feed information with intent to malign and discredit people they want to
attack. There were ambitious people in the Park who thought their spiritual
and educational superiority entitled them to the position of Imperator
instead of Stewart.
This proves Cristian Bernard got away with the takeover. It does not prove
incompetence, or any other charge. Stewart was duped into increasing the
Board of the Supreme
Grand Lodge to include the European Grand Masters. If you combine Christian
Bernard's charm with the popular anti-american sentiment, it's easy to see
why they voted to remove Stewart. Add to this a very extensive and effective
smear campaign against Stewart and the takeover was inevitable.
Why wasn't a tribunal of heirarchy members called, as provided for in the
constitution?
> My own personal suspicion is that Gary Stewart may have found himself in
> situations far beyond his abilities and experience to handle, and may
> have been betrayed by others who had hidden agendas - but, as a "Walking
> question mark", one can only speculate, after studying all the evidence.
Possibly true.
adde...@yahoo.com
Hello,
I'm not sure if your question is more concerned with the events
immediately following the dismissal in 1993 as they pertain to the
dismissal or what happened with AMORC and Stewart during the ensuing
10 years. If the latter, AMORC continued with its new incorporation
status and Stewart continued with the OMCE, BMO, and formed the CRC in
1996. A visit to the various websites should give you more information
as to who did what over the years.
If the former, the lawsuit effectively stopped and all litigation
between AMORC and Stewart was over. The request for dismissal was
initiated by AMORC after they received notice from the court to take
some sort of action with their lawsuit instead of letting it lay
around collecting dust so they could clear their dockets of the matter
( in otherwords, AMORC received an "either shit or get off the pot
type of *notice*"). The request was further prompted by the filed INS
insurance fraud suit against AMORC regarding their alleged
misrepresentations to their insurance carriers regarding their
lawsuit. The settlement with Stewart is a matter of public record; the
settlement with other parties named in the suit is sealed; and their
settlement with INS suit was also made under a seal of
confidentiality.
Addersix
adde...@yahoo.com
adde...@yahoo.com
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:02:59 -0600, Michael Drummond
<mdru...@supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Terence2 wrote:
>> I learned that after 3 years AMORC dropped charges against him.
>> Can somebody summarize what happened then ?
>> peace profound
>I "could" write lots here. I have here, on loan from a fellow very
>long-time member (and very good friend), complete court transcripts from
>November 19th, 1990, from the Superior Court of the State of California,
>in and for the County of Santa Clara.
What does that have to do with the original question? Your response to
Terrence2 is akin to me writing to you from this post that even though
you keep saying in various posts of yours that you wish Stewart well,
you make it pretty obvious you don't. Why don't you just be honest and
say what you think instead of attempting to disguise your opinions
with perceived rosicrucian platitudes of fairness, etc.? I think
you'll find *being* honest and open is far more rewarding than wanting
to *appear* to be honest and open.
In both cases, your statement and mine, the statements aren't relevant
to the question or comment. You're taking a question relating to
events occuring in 1993 to grandstand about something near and dear to
you which happened in 1990 that you're just *itching* to say but
couldn't introduce because you would sound like you had an agenda, and
I'm responding here with something I could've responded to better by
referring to a differet post of yours but chose to do here because I'm
getting in your face about your lack of honesty and think this post
here is better suited to my objective.
Ah well, in that you brought up the order granting plaintiffs motion
for summary adjudication of issues, ok. It can be an interesting
conversation so long as everyone knows what they're talking about.
>There was also much in the local papers, such as the "Mercury News".
Your reference escapes me here. How is this applicable? And if any of
it is, what was said? C'mon, enquiring minds want to know.
>A Rosicrucian is encouraged to be a "Walking question mark" - and not
>to believe anything that is not personally experienced. I had heard lots
>of rumours, but now I have FACTS!!!
You say you have all the facts and also have, on loan, the complete
court transcripts of what transpired on November 19, 1990. First of
all, why on loan? It's easy enough to get your own personal copy.
Anyway, I take that to mean that in addition to the two page order
granting plaintiffs motion for summary adjudication of issues of
which you quote in part, you also have available the actual motion and
all arguments submitted by both sides to the courts. What did they
say? Why don't you mention what the intent of that motion was and
further explain why the judge wrote: "...and by matters judicially
noticed by this Court ..." when he wrote his Order?
It appears to me that if you had all the facts and understood what
that motion was intended to do, you wouldn't be posting as you are.
Simply, for the sake of those who do not have access to these
documents, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and will
believe also includes you, AMORC developed a strategy in the attempt
to undercut Stewart's claim that the Office of Imperator and President
of the Supreme Grand Lodge were *two* different positions, as provided
for by the Constitutions of the organization.
AMORC went before the court and argued that the word "Imperator" was
an inhouse word which means "President of a corporation" and had no
other significance. Stewart argued that the word had nothing to do
with the corporate structure and was a bestowed title given by the
preceeding Imperator and which defined a position that both guards and
protects all Rosicrucian doctrinal and ritualistic matters. He further
argued that since the President of the corporation had served a five
year term since the corporations inception in 1927 and the Imperator
was an ad vitum appointment as defined in the Supreme Grand Lodge
Constitution, Rosicrucian doctrine, and in various publications, such
examples confirmed his contention that the two offices were separate.
AMORC naturally countered that contention by restricting their
definitions to purely corporate and legal standards as they are
recognized by the California Courts.
Since AMORC was arguing purely as a matter of corporate law recognized
by the State of California (i.e., a simple majority of a corporations
directors can remove any other director for any reason and since
"Imperator" was simply another name for the director serving as
President), and Stewart was arguing doctrinal definitions as they are
recognized by Rosicrucian doctrine and constitution, the judge's Order
was made based entirely upon points of law that were, as he wrote,
"... matters judicially noticed by this court ...". Meaning, he wasn't
going to get involved in the internal conflicts and only view the
motion as it pertained to California code.
Yes, AMORC got the court to agree to their motion so as to narrow down
the issues at trial to focus upon the original allegation of
embezzlement rather than who the rightful Imperator was. Sort of a
safety net in case they lost the embezzlement issue, they wouldn't
risk getting Stewart legally reinstated. If AMORC could argue they had
the right to remove Stewart regardless if their allegations were valid
or not, it wouldn't matter if they lost at trial because either way,
they would get what they wanted.
>I will say no more, except to use the judge's own words:
I kept them in as you represented them correctly. You just missed the
boat in understanding them.
By your reckoning, one would think, if that were the case, they would
have sought to drop the charges on November 19th, 1990 instead of
waiting almost another three years, a court notice, and a fraud suit
filed against them before doing so. A purusal through the court
documents, consisting of motions, depositions, etc. etc. that
transpired between November 19, 1990 and August 10, 1993 when the suit
was finally dismissed reveals a hell of a lot of activity and
*considerable* expense. No, I disagree with your suggestion that AMORC
dropped all charges merely for financial reasons. If they were
concerned about that they would've behaved differently.
>The good news is that
>the Order has survived this catastrophe, and good has triumphed.
Well, the Order got dissolved and reincorporated in another country
and a couple of brand new corporations were started (i.e. English
Grand Lodge for one); an obscene amount of members money was spent on
chasing rainbows by way feeding various law firms; a previously
believed tradition regarding the function of the Order was trashed as
well as its governing documents, many members were alienated, and the
list goes on. So if that is your interpretation of surviving a
catastrophe, well, I disagree. Seems to me it's more of a compromise
for no other reason than to feed a few egos.
<snip>
>My own personal suspicion is that Gary Stewart may have found himself in
> situations far beyond his abilities and experience to handle, and may
>have been betrayed by others who had hidden agendas - but, as a "Walking
>question mark", one can only speculate, after studying all the evidence.
I thought your concept of a walking question mark was akin to
questioning until one found the "FACTS!!!" as you put it. Why is it
now that a walking question mark can only "speculate "after studying
all the evidence? Are you now saying your facts are only
speculations? The way I see it, when a Rosicrucian is encouraged to be
a walking question mark, the intent is to question anything and
everything so as to get as close to the truth as possible. It is not,
as you seem to demonstrate, a badge that is worn as an indication of
clulessness.
<snip>
>BTW - my interest in all this is as an individual private person, and as
>a member of AMORC - and not in any way an "official" comment because of
>the office I am so privileged to hold at this time.
Bullshit. Your interest in all this is to advertise the "office"
you're so privleged to hold and to make it known you consider yourself
a voice of authority. Too bad you don't really have the skills to
sound convincing.
>You will see my other profound interest and heartfelt desire, to help
>others know TRUTH,
Is this post an example of that profound interest and heartfelt
desire?
>in my papers on the late John Robinson's books about
>Freemasonry, viz. "Born in Blood" and "A Pilgrim's Path" at:
>http://users.imag.net/~edm.mdrumins/page6.html
>and
>http://users.imag.net/~edm.mdrumins/page4.html
>
>Sincerely and fraternally, with best wishes for Peace profound,
>
>Michael Drummond
>
Addersix
adde...@yahoo.com
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:51:26 GMT, "keranos" <keranos~@flash.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>This proves Cristian Bernard got away with the takeover. It does not prove
>incompetence, or any other charge. Stewart was duped into increasing the
>Board of the Supreme
>Grand Lodge to include the European Grand Masters.
My sources indicate Stewart was the motivating force to expand the
board to include all Grand Masters (not just the European ones).
Apparently, it was intended to bring corporate AMORC into line with a
change in the IRS 1979 tax classifications for non profits of which
AMORC was in violation since the rule changed when it comes to the 51%
disinterested rule for corporate directors. If the majority of the
directors are not being paid by the US corporation, then the ones that
already exist could continue to be employed by the corporation. As of
March 1990, 4 of the 5 directors and/or family members were being
compensated by the Supreme Grand Lodge. It may not have been a good
choice for Stewart to make, but it seemed to be a necessary one to
protect AMORC's nonprofit status. Either way, it appears Stewart was
between a rock and a hard place.
<snip>
Addersix
keranos
from AMORC if they did not get voting rights.
keranos
<adde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f382ebf...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
Michael Drummond
they sometimes do exactly what they want - not what one might hope. The
other documents filed are what is more interesting - was obvious that
Stewart considered himself like the Pope, and had no requirement to
harmonize with anybody, certainly not the Board of Directors. I think
he was very immature, lacked many skills, and was manipulated by others,
and I don't mean Board members. A very sad saga! And what was the
Unification Church's involvement?
Michael Drummond
person)
BTW - as "addersix" (no real name, etc. given) - it is so easy
(cowardly?) for you to attack others. I don't note much "humility" in
your writings, so doubt if you are a Rosicrucian - "adder" + "six"
(sometimes used as a symbol of the "devil"?) might suggest a somewhat
vitriolic personality one might want to keep at a distance! LOL
But you are in part correct. Any feelings I had of sympathy with Gary
Stewart were substantially changed when I read the court documents. For
example, he duped Burnham Schaa into signing documents which Fr. Schaa
thought were purely routine and would be discussed at the Board Meeting.
They never were discussed and Gary Stewart would not share with the
Board what he was planning to do, entirely without consultation. This
tells several things: firstly that initially, Gary Stewart had respect,
as Imperator, from other Board members, who trusted him. It also
showed that he had a very arrogant attitude towards those Board members.
As for "What has Gary Stewart been doing since...?" In the 2nd Masonic
Degree, we are told that God is a "geometrician". So, by studying the
actions of Gary Stewart and others prior to that Court ruling, one can
"project" his characteristics into the future!!! (See also Emerson's
famous essay "Compensation":
http://members.tripod.com/~michaeldrum/page-2.html
The fact that he put a mortgage on Rosicrucian Park, to obtain 3 million
dollars, all done in secret from the other Board Members, which moneys
he then had sent out of the country, speaks volumes!!!
As for his close friend and advisor, Antonio de Nicolas, an executive
associated with the Unification Church (known popularly as "The Moonies"
- founded by Reverend Moon in 1954, which proclaims its agenda as
"Control of the World"), there is speculation as to whether the whole
process was an attempt to "infiltrate" and "take over" AMORC(???)
Certainly Gary Stewart's successful bid to become Ralph Lewis' successor
as Imperator was an extremely clever maneuver, using all the skills of
either a brilliant potential leader, or a charlatan(???) Each must come
to their own conclusions, after reading those court documents, as to
what was the real situation. I am told of an incident when Gary Stewart
told Ralph Lewis, who apparently desperately wanted a grandson, after
Gary and his wife had a son, "Here is YOUR grandson...!!!" On another
occasion, after becoming Imperator, he visited a Lodge for a major
event, and then when all present awaited a major speech by their
new Imperator, he announced that he had left his notes behind, and then
spoke very poorly, obviously without any preparation It was a big
disappointment to those present.
So, as Emerson describes, and as our Order explains regarding "karma" -
the law of "Cause and Effect" - is it really so surprising, that his
actions would not cause considerable anxiety and opposition??? As for
his future actions after being removed from the office of Imperator,
which position I am convinced he could have retained for life, had he
moved much more slowly, and by working with HIS Board, etc. I simply
don't buy the arguments of those who said it was a scheme for Christian
Bernard to overthrow him and take his place. Gary Stewart virtually
"committed suicide" because of his actions. He must have been extremely
naive or arrogant if he really believed such actions would be accepted
and tolerated by the Order???
And, yes, despite all, I still wish him well, and leave to the Cosmic or
God, the consequences of his actions. So mote it be.
With all good wishes for Peace Profound (and same wishes to Gary Stewart
et al),
Sincerely and fraternally,
Michael
(Rosicrucian Student)
Mt. Nyiragongo
> I leaned that after 3 years AMORC dropped charges against him.
> Can somebody summarize what happened then ?
> peace profound
Anyone can see that there is a fair amount of new-age-ery on the AMORC
web site, things that seem very commonplace and easily demolished by
any half competent skeptic. Then we find that Gary Stewart is a
crook. This is all consistent with the skeptical interpretation that
it's all just moneymaking pseudo-jehovistic BS. I have not seen ONE
single post on this group by anyone who _knows_ something. So either
there are no serious people or they are not here or they're here and
hiding.
adde...@yahoo.com
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:39:15 -0600, Michael Drummond
<mdru...@supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>"Without prejudice" (written as the personal viewpoint of a private
>person)
But seemingly with a lot of bigotry. Ah well, let's see ... where to
begin. How about let's start with everything you're trying to avoid.
I'll do a quick synopsis for you just in case you attention span isn't
functioning properly.
You stated you are now in possession of "facts" of which places you in
a position of being in the know (I didn't want to say "which places
you in a position of authority" as you have taken great pains to let
us know you are merely a humble private person and are offering your
opinions as such and not with the authority granted you by the office
you are "... so privileged to hold at this time.") But, I digress ...
anyway, it is from these alleged facts that you present your
hypothesis (or speculation as you seem to be a bit muddled as to what
Rosicrucians are supposed to do with facts) for scrutiny in a public
forum. So, please forgive me as I nail you down to limit your wiggle
room so I can try to figure out just what in the hell you're trying to
say and the objective you're trying to establish. As I read in the bio
on your website, I see you have a Ph.D from Columbia Pacific
University based in Novato California so I know you are wise to the
ways and means of the academician.
So, as you have presented us with your educated conclusions but have
failed to substantiate them, I'll repeat those here that are of
interest to me:
1. You say you have, on loan, the "complete" court transcripts of
November 19, 1990 and then you proceeded to quote, in part, the Judges
ruling for the motion for summary adjudication. But there were some
questions you left unanswered: a) what was said in the original motion
and what were the arguments on both sides? b) what was the intent of
the motion? and c) what did the judge mean when he wrote "...and by
matters judicially noticed by this Court ..."? I already gave you my
take on the matter, but as you obviously disagree and have come to a
different conclusion, I'm interested in hearing how you arrived at it.
After all, that is what a walking question mark does, isn't it?
2. You claimed there was factual material published by the San Jose
Mercury News relevant to your conclusion. What was it?
3. You offered the argument that the charges against Stewart et. al.
were dropped by AMORC after the judge ruled in AMORC's favor with
regard to the above mentioned motion for the reason of conserving much
needed funds. If that be true, then why did AMORC wait for almost
three years before doing so?
4. Just out of curiosity, how come you responded to terrence2's
question about what had transpired after 1993 with an event that took
place in 1990? I can't see the relevance there so maybe you can help
me out.
Simple enough ... now with your present post.
>BTW - as "addersix" (no real name, etc. given) - it is so easy
>(cowardly?) for you to attack others.
You seem a bit overly sensitive. I'm just pointing out the obvious
while trying to figure out what you're doing
> I don't note much "humility" in
>your writings, so doubt if you are a Rosicrucian
Perhaps you think being humble is a contradiction in terms with being
straight forward? If so, I disagree. What *I* think is a contradiction
are those who choose to mask their viciousness with a pretense of
humility. It's a type of attitudinal preoccupation of those who drift
toward cults. But if it makes you feel any better, I don't see myself
as being a very humble person and I don't claim to be. I never claimed
to be a Rosicrucian either. Does it matter to you?
> - "adder" + "six"
>(sometimes used as a symbol of the "devil"?) might suggest a somewhat
>vitriolic personality one might want to keep at a distance! LOL
>
>But you are in part correct. Any feelings I had of sympathy with Gary
>Stewart were substantially changed when I read the court documents. For
>example, he duped Burnham Schaa into signing documents which Fr. Schaa
>thought were purely routine and would be discussed at the Board Meeting.
And in those same court documents Stewart claimed there was full
disclosure, not only to the Board, but to other key personnel as well.
In fact, you'll find mention of an employee meeting for all employees
of the HQ some weeks prior to the transaction where he laid out his
plans and intentions. The fact that before any bank can give a loan to
an institution it is required that the bank receive a copy of a board
resolution to borrow kind of indicates to me Schaa might be the one
trying to do the duping. But anyway, who cares? I think the issue here
is not who did what to whom, but rather, what are people nowadays
doing to each other. You claim to offer a Rosicrucian standard of
presenting facts so truth can be discovered, but you consistently fail
to offer pertinent information so one can gather all sides of the
story. That doesn't seem very Rosicrucian-like to me. But maybe 25
years as a member wasn't long enough for you to learn that bit.
> They never were discussed and Gary Stewart would not share with the
>Board what he was planning to do, entirely without consultation.
From what I read, it was claimed they were discussed and it is from
that contention which formed, in part, the basis of the insurance
fraud suit filed against AMORC in 1993. In other words, the insurance
carriers felt there was enough evidence to demonstrate that all
actions in 1990 were in accordance with normal business practices and
all parties were aware of all transactions. Where the fraud came in
was when the Supreme Secretary, Irving Suderland, tried to collect on
a claim that he shouldn't have tried to collect upon.
> This
>tells several things: firstly that initially, Gary Stewart had respect,
>as Imperator, from other Board members, who trusted him.
So if all the board members trusted him, why would he have to conceal
his actions? Sorry pal, ain't following your logic here.
> It also
>showed that he had a very arrogant attitude towards those Board members.
You'll have to explain that conclusion as well. Your logic is a bit
lacking.
>As for "What has Gary Stewart been doing since...?" In the 2nd Masonic
>Degree, we are told that God is a "geometrician". So, by studying the
>actions of Gary Stewart and others prior to that Court ruling, one can
>"project" his characteristics into the future!!! (See also Emerson's
>famous essay "Compensation":
>http://members.tripod.com/~michaeldrum/page-2.html
Ok, I'll bite. What's the projection? It's been 13 years so I'm pretty
sure we can measure this one with good accuracy.
>The fact that he put a mortgage on Rosicrucian Park, to obtain 3 million
>dollars, all done in secret from the other Board Members, which moneys
>he then had sent out of the country, speaks volumes!!!
How could he secretly put a mortgage on Rosicrucian Park? AMORC got
their loan from a bank, not a loan shark. And as I said before, it
requires a corporate resolution to borrow amongst other things to
accomplish such a transaction. But I thought you read the papers.
AMORC obtained a line of credit to the tune of 8 million dollars of
which 3 million was sent to a Supreme Grand Lodge account overseas to
seed a Spanish Grand Lodge in Spain; $500,000 went to accounts in the
States; and 4.5 Million stayed in San Jose. If there was something
fishy going on, why wasn't all 8 million moved to an offshore account
in some other name besides the Supreme Grand Lodge?
>As for his close friend and advisor, Antonio de Nicolas, an executive
>associated with the Unification Church (known popularly as "The Moonies"
>- founded by Reverend Moon in 1954, which proclaims its agenda as
>"Control of the World"), there is speculation as to whether the whole
>process was an attempt to "infiltrate" and "take over" AMORC(???)
I heard de Nicholas successively sued those who started that rumor.
Anyway, according to the court documents, de Nicholas was a tenured
professor at the University of New York. If I recall correctly, it was
SUNY. Gee, I think you're just getting silly. Be carefuly you don't
get too paranoid with these conspiracy theories of yours, but what the
hey. Whatever happened to this walking question mark philosophy of
yours? Or does it only apply when it suits you?
>Certainly Gary Stewart's successful bid to become Ralph Lewis' successor
>as Imperator was an extremely clever maneuver, using all the skills of
>either a brilliant potential leader, or a charlatan(???) Each must come
>to their own conclusions, after reading those court documents, as to
>what was the real situation.
Why does he have to be one or the other? But I suppose one can read
your website and come up with the same potential about you. Just a
suggestion, though ... if I were you, I wouldn't go around telling
people you got your Ph.D from Columbia Pacific University since it was
closed on 1/13/2000 by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and
Vocational Education for the State of California for the reasons that
they awarded excessive credit for prior experiential learning; failed
to employ duly qualified faculty; and failed to meet various
requirements for issuing doctorates. In other words, they were a
diploma mill and is certainly suggests those who claim Doctorates from
them could easily be viewed as being charlatans.
> I am told of an incident when Gary Stewart
>told Ralph Lewis, who apparently desperately wanted a grandson, after
>Gary and his wife had a son, "Here is YOUR grandson...!!!"
How about documenting this so we can verify it. Or are you a believer
that truth is better served by unsubstantiated gossip. Shit! And you
complain about *me* having a vitriolic personality.
> On another
>occasion, after becoming Imperator, he visited a Lodge for a major
>event, and then when all present awaited a major speech by their
>new Imperator, he announced that he had left his notes behind, and then
> spoke very poorly, obviously without any preparation It was a big
>disappointment to those present.
Is this verified, or is it gossip? Is your source impartial or biased?
>So, as Emerson describes, and as our Order explains regarding "karma" -
>the law of "Cause and Effect" - is it really so surprising, that his
>actions would not cause considerable anxiety and opposition???
If his actions did not cause considerable anxiety and opposition, why
are you so obsessed with him?
> As for
>his future actions after being removed from the office of Imperator,
>which position I am convinced he could have retained for life,
According to many, he still retains that position.
> had he
>moved much more slowly, and by working with HIS Board, etc. I simply
>don't buy the arguments of those who said it was a scheme for Christian
>Bernard to overthrow him and take his place.
I don't necessarily do either, I think Bernard and company initially
figured they had a patsy in the oval office and when they found out
differently, they did everything they could to cover their asses and
do a lot of finger pointing before the fingers started to seriously
point at them. The way I see it, AMORC was dirty and it still is.
> Gary Stewart virtually
>"committed suicide" because of his actions. He must have been extremely
>naive or arrogant if he really believed such actions would be accepted
>and tolerated by the Order???
I suppose it all depends upon which side of the fence you're sitting
and how one defines naviety and arrogance.
>And, yes, despite all, I still wish him well, and leave to the Cosmic or
>God, the consequences of his actions. So mote it be.
>
>With all good wishes for Peace Profound (and same wishes to Gary Stewart
>et al),
>
>Sincerely and fraternally,
>
>Michael
>(Rosicrucian Student)
<snip for brevity>
Bill Adder (addersix)
Frater Kerouac
news:859910b0.03081...@posting.google.com:
When I joined over three decades ago the image and publicty of the Order
was something to be overcome. It probably still is today, for most people.
I was skeptical about the organisation from the beginning and still am.
Despite feeling a strong loyalty to the Order because of the instruction I
have received as a member, I still am skeptical about the organisation.
On the other hand I continually benefit from what I have learn. So my
supreme loyalty in this area is to the philosophy and effectiveness of the
practical experiments. It is possible through membership to transform
one's self in a significant and progressive way, by better realising one's
true nature.
Older editions of the Rosicrucian Manual list the content of the Monographs
by degree up to the 9th. What is said to be taught, actually is taught.
For some it can take 5 or ten years to realise the benefit of what they are
learning. A very old statistic was that only 10% of members make to the
9th degree, which is in many respects the starting point. It takes about 6
years to get there. You can quit at any time, and in most cases can rejoin
at any time.
As for being a money making scheme, the lessons are about $300 or so a
year, about the price of cable tv no?
If you are familiar with the instruction programme for members - weekly
lessons, comprised of theory and practical experiments, you are not far
from understanding that the value of Order rests with the effectiveness of
its teachings on those who study and so the experiments regularly and
sincerely.
Michael Drummond
not too clever at this - no time at present. Pity about Columbia
Pacific University - they used to be excellent - had full Government of
California Accreditation then. I sure don't regret my four years and
hard work (see:
http://mdrumins.freeyellow.com/page4.html etc. )
Best wishes,
Michael
Michael Drummond
which is totally democratic - whereas AMORC is very autocratic.
However, if one ignores all the negatives, and as you say, concentrates
on the teachings, the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC gives profound
instruction, and my advice to all is to join an affiliated body - not to
remain just a "Grand Lodge member" - I cannot start to count my
blessings re all I have gained thanks to the "Fort Edmonton Chapter"
(now "Northern Light Lodge"). I would also advise all to join
"Toastmasters International" which does wonderful things to one's
self-esteem and self-image!
Oh dear - now that adder guy will ask what the *** has this got to do
with Gary Stewart etc.!!! I guess, not much, except to say: "YES, I am
very bigoted in favour of AMORC!!!"
adde...@yahoo.com
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:44:44 -0600, Michael Drummond
<mdru...@supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Thanks for your reply - I'll try to respond in due course - I guess am
>not too clever at this - no time at present.
It's not a matter of being clever. Moreso a matter of keeping an open
mind when you read and being fair when you express your opinions to
others. I doubt if you'll respond. But if you do, more power to you.
> Pity about Columbia
>Pacific University - they used to be excellent - had full Government of
>California Accreditation then. I sure don't regret my four years and
>hard work (see:
>http://mdrumins.freeyellow.com/page4.html etc. )
Seems to be a bit of wishful thinking on your part. I would assume you
read their brochure before paying their fees? But I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt that you didn't. Just so you know, Columbia
Pacific University was founded in 1978 as a private, *nonaccredited*
correspondance school offering programs leading to Bachelors, Masters,
and Doctorate-level "degrees" in various subjects. They ran into a bit
of trouble when the laws were reformed in 1989, The following may be
of interest to you:
Sequence of Events Leading to the Injunction
* The initial Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education
Reform Act of 1989 went into effect in 1991. Columbia Pacific
University was given "grandfather" status as an approved,
degree-granting institution.
* CPU subsequently submitted its first application for approval to
the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, the
predecessor agency of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and
Vocational Education.
* After a comprehensive review and assessment, the council denied
CPU's application on numerous grounds on December 15, 1996. CPU
appealed that denial. While the appeal was pending, CPU was legally
permitted to continue operating.
* Following an evidentiary administrative hearing, an independent
administrative law judge upheld the council's denial. A final decision
and order of denial was issued by the council on or about June 25,
1997.
* CPU petitioned the Alameda County Superior Court for a writ of
mandamus vacating the council's order and decision denying CPU
approval to operate. CPU also sought a temporary stay of the council's
decision pending the outcome of the writ petition.
* The court denied CPU's request for a stay of the council's
decision. Therefore, as of June 25, 1997, CPU has not possessed an
approval to operate as a postsecondary institution in the state of
California. CPU did not further pursue its writ action at that time,
but continued to operate.
* In late 1997 the council initiated a civil action in Marin
County Superior Court to enjoin CPU's illegal operations.
* On January 1, 1998, the bureau succeeded to all the rights and
powers of the council. The bureau continued to pursue the action
against CPU initiated by the council.
* On February 10, 1998, the bureau's motion for a preliminary
injunction against CPU was denied by the Marin Superior Court on
procedural grounds. The bureau appealed that denial.
* On October 1, 1998, the First Appellate District reversed the
trial court's denial of the bureau's motion for a preliminary
injunction. CPU then petitioned the California Supreme Court for
review of the appellate court decision.
* On December 16, 1998, the California Supreme Court denied CPU's
petition for review. Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial
court for reconsideration of the bureau's motion.
* On January 26, 1999, the bureau's motion for a preliminary
injunction was reconsidered and granted. The case was set for trial in
May 1999. CPU appealed that decision. As a result of the Marin County
Superior Court's decision at the trial, that appeal is moot.
* Following the California Supreme Court's denial of CPU's
petition for review in the Marin County action, CPU renewed its writ
action in Alameda Superior Court.
* The Alameda County Superior Court denied CPU's request for a
writ of mandamus. CPU appealed that decision, and the appeal is
currently pending.
* On the date of the trial in the injunction action, CPU served
notice that it had filed bankruptcy the previous day. The Marin County
Superior Court stayed the action.
* The bureau sought, and on July 23, 1999, obtained, relief in
bankruptcy court from the automatic stay of the injunction action.
* The injunction action proceeded to trial on December 1 and 2,
1999, at the conclusion of which the judge issued her decision.
* CPU appealed, but on February 21, 2001, the judge denied the
appeal and issued a final order.
Hey, if you got your degree after 1997, you're entitled to a refund.
But if you got it before then, I guess you spent a lot of money for a
bogus degree.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Michael
>
>adde...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:39:15 -0600, Michael Drummond
>> <mdru...@supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
<snip>
addersix
news.prodigy.net
achieve an objective by using prescribed methods and critical thinking. They
are conferred upon those who have proven they are able to achieve a
particular standard as judged by those who have demonstrated the same
abilities.
While the work involved in getting any degree is an important work for
anyone (in my opinion with the current state of economics) it is actually
worthless in the large scheme of things. I have never heard of anyone
further along the path state, "Oh and did you see my degree from Tennessee
Statue Univ?"
I have certificates from several well know and "unknown" Orders that lay
around in a filing cabinet somewhere that I will probably never look at
again. I degree that sits in a drawer somewhere. A diploma that I haven't
the faintest where to find amongst my things.
Doing that work is what is important.
I consistently wonder why people feel the need to try and belittle others.
The best I have figured out in my small brain is that instead of trying to
improve themselves, they must try and elevate themselves over those they
feel may be superior to them in someway.
Showing facts and truths are wonderful. Doing so to try and humiliate
another person shows that you have moved from a walking question mark to a
walking exclamation point Addersix.
Though I am sure you have valuable information to contribute to this
discussion in regards to AMORC or Rosicruicianism in general, I fail to see
how trying to humiliate another individual has to do with this discussion.
LLL
In the Light of the Glorious Star
Septagram
Michael Drummond
Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California awarded
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management and Communications....etc.
10th day of June A.D. 1983
In accordance with Subdivision (b) of California Educational Code
Section 94310, this document verifies that the Superintendent of Public
Instruction impaneled a qualified visiting
committee and conducted a comprehensive on-site qualitative review and
assessment of the institution and all programs offered and, therefore,
grants:
F U L L I N S T I T U T I O N A L A P P R O V A L
AS A CALIFORNIA DEGREE-GRANTING INSTITUTION
to 2100311 CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
cOLUMBIA pACIFIC uNIVERSITY Private Postsecondary Education Division
1415 third sTREET, 721 Capitol Mall
sAN rAFAEL, Sacramento, CA 95814-4785
California 94901
The following degrees are included in this unconditional full
institutional approval pursuant to California Education Code Section
94310(b):
Various - including:
School of Administration and Management
Bachelor of Arts
Master of Arts
Doctor of Philosophy
signed etc. etc. Bill Honig Countersigned William K. Noble GB
Superintendent of Director Private
Postsecondary Education Division
public Instruction ...through: June 2, 1989
Bogus???
Not according to these documents.
O.K. - shoot them down.
Seems to me they provided a most valuable service - took a long time to
die, by your schedule listed below.
I did do a long response to yours, but erased it.
Good bye.
Michael Drummond
issued.
I likened it to the "Magic feather" given to Dumbo in Walt Disney's
famous movie. It really was of no value, was just a piece of paper,
like Dumbo's feather. Dumbo already knew how to fly. But the feather
might help him to have some confidence to overcome the fear and doubt in
his mind initially. The Ph.D. has helped me and given me confidence in
similar ways from time to time.
Rosicrucians are told that the knowledge they seek is already to be
found within their beings, since we are all part of the universal Mind.
For me, the studies and "Piece of paper" were useful when dealing with
certain bureaucrats or mundane materialistic individuals - it meant
little to myself It has also been useful for my business dealings aa an
insurance broker, especially when i did not complete a full course of
study, such as the Certified Financial Planner program - I passed many
of the modules - in fact all except the last one, which i found to be
out of harmony with the work i do. But the reference books and
knowledge from working through that course were most beneficial. Since
i did not qualify to receive that other piece of paper, the Ph.D. was
useful from a practical standpoint. I feel my F.R.C. and D.T.M. are
both superior to it.
adde...@yahoo.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:28:58 -0600, Michael Drummond
<mdru...@supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>Columbia Pacific University - under authority granted by the
>Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California awarded
>the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management and Communications....etc.
> 10th day of June A.D. 1983
>
>In accordance with Subdivision (b) of California Educational Code
>Section 94310, this document verifies that the Superintendent of Public
> Instruction impaneled a qualified visiting
>committee and conducted a comprehensive on-site qualitative review and
>assessment of the institution and all programs offered and, therefore,
>grants:
>
> F U L L I N S T I T U T I O N A L A P P R O V A L
> AS A CALIFORNIA DEGREE-GRANTING INSTITUTION
>
>to 2100311 CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
>cOLUMBIA pACIFIC uNIVERSITY Private Postsecondary Education Division
<snip>
you wrote previously:
>>>Pity about Columbia
>>>Pacific University - they used to be excellent - had full Government of
>>>California Accreditation then. I sure don't regret my four years and
>>>hard work (see:
>>>http://mdrumins.freeyellow.com/page4.html etc. )
There's a huge difference between academic accreditation and
institutional approval and if you read the statements made by CPU,
they clearly stated, from the onset, they were a nonaccreditated
institution.
>Bogus???
If you claim to have an accredited degree from CPU, yes. If you claim
to have a correspondance degree from an institution that was, at one
time approved by the State of California, no.
>Not according to these documents.
You're proving my point. If you fail to apply critical analysis to
things that happen to you in your own life, how can we trust or place
value upon your assessments and/or opinions on the matters we were
discussing? My pov is by all means keep your opinions, but use a
little critical thinking when introducing points for discussion and
draw a clear line between fact, speculation, opinion, and gossip -
which you haven't been doing.
>O.K. - shoot them down.
>Seems to me they provided a most valuable service - took a long time to
>die, by your schedule listed below.
Not my schedule. I cut and pasted it from the statement made by the
Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education for the
State of California.
>
>I did do a long response to yours, but erased it.
>
>Good bye.
Addersix
Michael Drummond
I thought others would want to know things that I could look for in
those court records and answer questions. Seems nobody wants to discuss
it. For me, studying the records and the court's decision (plus my own
experiences as a P1 officer in the R.A.F. (Courts Martial, Boards of
Inquiry, etc.)) convinced me regarding the truth. You seem to regard
the Judge's decision as flawed.
With the Masons, and the attacks on Masonry, it was a very different
story. Masons are keen to know about the shysters, some high up in
politics, who use fraudulent documents to attack Masonry. Plus i only
had to quote what a much more astute researcher, John Robinson, had
written in his books "Born in Blood" and "A Pilgrims Path":
As for my Ph.D. - I never thought there was much difference - still
don't - though I agree with you, is probably as different as a CD of
classical music is from an old scratchy 78 RPM that I listened to as a
young man!
The "Fully Institutional Ph.D.' fitted perfectly because so much that I
have done, learnt, been trained on, in the Royal Air Force, such as
courses on management, flying, technical, and then since then sales,
sales management, etc. had no documentation at all. So, at that earlier
time of my life, it added a useful piece of paper for where I should
have had them (graduates from the Royal Air Force College Cranwell
(equivalent to West Point) get a University Degree nowadays) - I got a
Permanent Commission and the Flying badge of a pilot! Nothing that I
could show to a prospective employer!
Thanks for enlightening me on these facts.
Michael
adde...@yahoo.com
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:26:21 GMT, "news.prodigy.net"
<mi...@planetarymagick.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Showing facts and truths are wonderful. Doing so to try and humiliate
>another person shows that you have moved from a walking question mark to a
>walking exclamation point Addersix.
That was pretty much my point to Drummond.
>Though I am sure you have valuable information to contribute to this
>discussion in regards to AMORC or Rosicruicianism in general, I fail to see
>how trying to humiliate another individual has to do with this discussion.
This discussion *was* about the attempt to humiliate another person.
And what's worse, it was an attempt that started out by being made
against someone behind his back. Don't you get it?
>LLL
>In the Light of the Glorious Star
>
>Septagram
Addersix
adde...@yahoo.com
I vaguely recall hearing something like that, too, but I tend to think
it's just speculation on someone's part. Could you imagine the
complexity of the subsequent lawsuits if that were to happen? Plus the
problems of ownership of properties, etc. etc.
Addersix
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:45:01 GMT, "keranos" <keranos~@flash.net>
wrote:
adde...@yahoo.com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:02:33 -0600, Michael Drummond
<mdru...@supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>You are so correct. I regret ever writing a word!
>
>I thought others would want to know things that I could look for in
>those court records and answer questions. Seems nobody wants to discuss
>it.
I, for one, don't mind discussing it. In fact, I think it's important
to discuss for historical reasons. However, my point is that I don't
think we'll find the truth of the matter in any of the court records.
They're all based upon unproven allegations that were supposed to have
been decided in court. But, as the documents indicate, one person's
fact is another's opinion and since we weren't there, it's hard to
know what was in the heart's of those involved. I have my opinions
based upon observations, but ...
If you interpret different than I, and we're both open to discussion
without closing our minds, we'll both learn something.
> For me, studying the records and the court's decision (plus my own
>experiences as a P1 officer in the R.A.F. (Courts Martial, Boards of
>Inquiry, etc.)) convinced me regarding the truth. You seem to regard
>the Judge's decision as flawed.
No, I don't think the judge's decision is flawed. I think it was
perfectly correct for the matter that was brought to the court. That
being, does a California Corporation have the right to remove a
director for any reason and with a simple majority vote of the board.
That is what happened, that is the law and always has been. The only
question is, is the position of Imperator merely a member of the board
or is it something more? I personally think it to be the latter and I
interpret the judge's comment to acknowledge that possibility and
that he would not address that point because it was an internal issue
within AMORC and not one to be addressed by the State. Personally, I
believe that if Stewart was to be removed as Imperator, it should have
been by a tribunal consisting of AMORC members and done in accordance
with the then existing Constitution as it did have a formula for doing
so.
>With the Masons, and the attacks on Masonry, it was a very different
>story. Masons are keen to know about the shysters, some high up in
>politics, who use fraudulent documents to attack Masonry. Plus i only
>had to quote what a much more astute researcher, John Robinson, had
>written in his books "Born in Blood" and "A Pilgrims Path":
>http://users.imag.net/~edm.mdrumins/page6.html and
>http://users.imag.net/~edm.mdrumins/page4.html
I've read Robinson's books. Some of the best research and writing I
have seen on the subject of Masonry and Templarism.
>
>As for my Ph.D. - I never thought there was much difference - still
>don't - though I agree with you, is probably as different as a CD of
>classical music is from an old scratchy 78 RPM that I listened to as a
>young man!
It's not really so much what I or anyone else thinks. It's what you
think. You're the one that did the work. I really wasn't trying to
belittle you a someone else posted, but rather point out that if words
are not chosen carefully and facts presented properly, there will be a
helluva backlash. But I don't think I'm your enemy here although I can
make an educated guess that I'll probably disagree with you in a lot
of areas. But AMORC does have real enemies and most of them are on the
ideological level - i.e. books attacking H Spencer Lewis and even on
this newsgroup a few months ago. In that the attacks are often as ill
planned as many who try to defend, it would be nice if we could focus
on such a defense instead of gossip and things that don't really
matter anymore.
>
>The "Fully Institutional Ph.D.' fitted perfectly because so much that I
>have done, learnt, been trained on, in the Royal Air Force, such as
>courses on management, flying, technical, and then since then sales,
>sales management, etc. had no documentation at all. So, at that earlier
>time of my life, it added a useful piece of paper for where I should
>have had them (graduates from the Royal Air Force College Cranwell
>(equivalent to West Point) get a University Degree nowadays) - I got a
>Permanent Commission and the Flying badge of a pilot! Nothing that I
>could show to a prospective employer!
Those who are careful with their words cannot be criticized without
the other looking like an idiot. There's a fine distinction between
"accredited" and "approved" and probably no distinction insofar as
your're concerned. But it could be a problem if treated loosley.
>
>Thanks for enlightening me on these facts.
>
>Michael
Addersix
Teletourgos
change.
Can you, Frater Michael or Addersix tell me if this is true : that
Fulgenzio Batista was an AMORC member ?
Teletourgos
Michael Drummond
made some valuable points. As you said, we don't know what was in their
hearts, etc. Even the negative discussions about H.S. Lewis, etc. have
some validity - but IMHO, that man fully compensated for any
shortcomings and we are indebted to a huge degree to his work.
Re my Ph. D., I have always described it as a "Non-traditional Degree"
and that I was able to have my "Life experiences" assessed, as part of
the process, so that I was not required to "Go back to school" and start
over - which would have been out of the question for me.
The world is so full of hype, and "half-truths", it is getting harder
and harder to know what is accurate. Did you ever hear of an
organization called "Centerpointe Research Institute" - which claims to
have major break-throughs using "advanced technological sound processes"
for using while meditating, etc.? I am not sure if their claims are
accurate, or it is a clever way of using the "placebo effect" on
gullible people???
Thanks again for yours.
Michael
adde...@yahoo.com
That's going back a ways, but sorry, I haven't a clue.
Addersix
On 14 Aug 2003 23:33:19 -0700, telet...@yahoo.co.uk (Teletourgos)
wrote:
Michael Drummond
believe - which seems to suggest he might have been - but I have no idea
how reliable it is, and I don't read Dutch, so perhaps somebody else can
decipher what is here:
http://www.geocities.com/roggemansmarcel/amorc.htm ?
LLL,
Michael
Teletourgos
this- didn't have all the stuff on May Banks Stacey. However the tone
of it was negative so I wasn't interested in putting it all up on a
newsgroup as I had no idea whether it was all true. The writer could
have balanced it with mention of some of the good persons who are
supposed to have been AMORC members - the gent who wants me to get
into AMORC tells me Edith Piaf and Walt Disney were members, for
example. I think the author may be the same, Roggemans.
The other stuff about the woman, May Banks Stacy is also interesting
as theres postings on newsgroups about her and she seems pretty
controversial. One side says she was a 'legate' of the Rosicrucians in
India, the other side says she didnt have the means to go anywhere
much on account of poverty. Whats the real story on her ?
Teletourgos