RT REV T ALLEN
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Mr. Dathan Biberstein
Ordo Templi Orientis
Dear Mr. Biberstein:
I can’t begin to tell you how profoundly and sadly misguided and ill-informed I found your letter dated
It is obvious to anyone in possession of the facts that whatever the Tribunal – or more accurately, your bosses, have cooked up regarding myself has a great deal to do with my public “Statement on the OTO” and a more general effort to purge OTO of critics within the organization in any position to even remotely speak to grievances of substance within said organization. I do not use the term “purge” lightly. The timing of certain draconian rulings by the U.S. Grand Master, Mr. Scriven, and the reactionary and ill-considered “support statement” for David Scriven renders Scriven and the signers of said statement ipso facto in violation of their oath as Grand Inquisitor Commanders, should they participate in any way under whatever color in any investigation, hearing, tribunal or other form of inquisition of me for the contents of my said Statement.
Much of your letter presupposes a number of allegations that are unfounded. You state that a “Court of Inquiry” was convened August 4th last to hear complaints lodged against me, but you fail to mention who lodged said complaints, the nature of said complaints, and who constituted this Court of Inquiry. I therefore do not know if the objection under the GIC oath above would apply to said persons, nor am I even given the courtesy of knowing what person or persons accuse me, or what they accuse me of, either in general or in specific. I do know that I was considered in sufficiently good stead as a dues-current OTO member to be cited and commended for my Work in OTO as late as March and April last, to perform a series of IV* & P.I. initiations with full USGL approval during the same period, and to have made a nomination to the KEW Degree and received the personal approval of the USGM to perform same, which I did in May of this year, without any indication of being other than a commendable and responsible member of some eminence from any member of Grand Lodge through that time. This would mean that between May and August 4th – a rather narrow frame, something entirely nefarious would have to have been done by me or been discovered suddenly in my record, meriting a Court of Inquiry. Or it would mean that charges have been retrofitted to accommodate the suppression of open discussion.
Further, your letter does not inform me as to the nature of the alleged investigation by the anonymous Court, so-called. I therefore am in no position to speak to thoroughness, fairness or accuracy of anything done to ascertain whatever allegations were made. Having been a GIC myself since May 24 1997, and having been on the Tribunal in the most sensitive case considered in modern times by the Grand Tribunal, involving an accused IX* member of the OTO, I find this both irregular and extraordinarily unchivalrous. Further, having been an SGIG of the order active in a number of key investigations since my initiation as SGIG on
You state that the charges against me were mailed to me October 25 last, but I received no such letter of charges and specifications. I have *always* been available at email@example.com, and, just as this is being mailed to you in hardcopy following an email, I fail to see how you can conclude that I was served with charges in any reasonable way. You further state I failed to respond to these charges which I have never seen, was given two weeks to respond (to a letter I never got), was found ‘guilty as charged’ and was recommended for expulsion from your club on November 21st. Now, having sat on a Tribunal myself with your predecessor, I know that the accused person was given full notice, a neutral court was carefully selected for its neutrality, and many months were spent investigating the case, which was fully aired with the accused member present, who was offered and accepted an advisor of high prominence in the order, and who was given full rights and time to express his side of the story. This “trial” smacks of dark meetings of the ‘Sanhedrin’ at night, with absolutely no input from myself, no notification of said inquiry, of what evidence was presented, and I defy you or anyone to demonstrate that I was notified in even a cursory manner of this matter, though I had several communications with the Grand Secretary General during this period on a distantly related matter (and in which he provided erroneous information to me), and have never been inaccessible to you or anyone with access to email. I have had the same email address since 1995, and have countless communications from literally hundreds of OTO members at said address, up to and including the Acting OHO, Mr. Breeze, and the US Grand Master, Mr. Scriven.
In your letter you state I have 14 days from the date of your letter to ‘request’ an in-person Grand Tribunal. Actually, your letter, THE FIRST I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU, arrived on this date, so, for charges and specifications that I have not heard, based on allegations from unknown persons and decided by equally unknown people, you inform me I must be able to give evidence of my innocence in what is now ten remaining days. Innocence in what matter? Writing the truth as I see it? Thought crime? Calling for the resignation of managers I regard as incompetent? Original sin? What?
The unfairness here is typical of the problems of the current management of OTO, which has flourished in the free environment of the
In order to satisfy your basic stated requisite, not knowing even the nature of these doubtlessly specious charges, I can only draw upon my twenty-plus years of experience in OTO, my experience as a Grand Inquisitor Commander on the Grand Tribunal for nearly ten years, an SGIG for nearly ten years, something of an acknowledged authority on OTO rules and regulations (a few of which I am the author of) and assert innocence of *any* offense meriting expulsion from the order you represent. I therefore demand an in-person hearing, demand I be afforded reasonable information on the case at hand, be given a written apology for the slipshod way you have handled this matter as given above, and demand the same considerations – including an advisor and a neutral CoI – the oath of a GIC and your Bylaws demand for *any* member.
Your (their) alternative is to (A) withdraw all charges, or (B) start from scratch and do this by the book, or (C) go to the Acting OHO and expel me from membership without special cause, so the pretense of fairness can be seen for the farrago and fraud it apparently is.
Respect to the Membership,
T Allen Greenfield
T Allen Greenfield
Bishop Apostolic ad vitam
Reference to Grand Tribunal Bylaws Irregularities: I.E. pts. 1,2,3 & 4; II.D.; III.A.(conflicts with II.D. if “Statement” is part of case; A.4. pts 2-3; A.7. pt. 3; A.8.