Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00019)

Dear Dallas:

I think the setup of keeping ULT and Theosophy Company separate has a
lot of merits.

I have seen situations when there were instances where somewhat similar
setup was considered by individuals who wanted to donate property and at

the same time prevent some central authority trying to sell or dispose
them off due to any kind of dispute and the money spent on projects that
the
original donors never had in mind. In some such situations, when the
property holding entity's articles of incorporation are drawn up, it may
not even have the word of theosophy explicitly mentioned for the fear of
some theosophical organization trying to claim ownership because the
charter has been cancelled or revoked for any reason. Theosophical
organizations are not an exception to get involved in expensive
litigation.

mkr



>Thursday, August 02, 2001


Dear Bart:

You are wrong in assuming that the U.L.T. has property. It does
not.

It uses the property owned on its behalf by the THEOSOPHY COMPANY
which is a fiduciary legally empowered to do just that. The
fiduciary of any Lodge was required by the Govt. as otherwise the
U.L.T. cannot legally handle funds, property and publications,
etc...

The U.L.T. pursues it objectives: They are only two:

1. Continuing to make available the ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF
H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge.

2. Providing a forum for their study and discussion.


All other matters are "side issues" and, if you read the
DECLARATION carefully you will be able to decide if it does what
it says it is constituted to do.

Let me make it clear, as this is written as a result of my
observation for many years and in many Lodges and Study Groups of
the U.L.T.: The Fiduciary is not the Master of the ULT it is
the SERVANT of that U.L.T.

As the Fiduciary is usually made up of Trustees or directors (as
required by Law -- the details are filed annually) who generally
are the more experienced and older "associates" of that Lodge,
they may some of them wear "two hats." Originally and
subsequently they were chosen by consultation and conference with
one another.

The .fiduciary has all the trappings of a NOT FOR PROFIT
organization (as required by law).

The U.L.T. shuns "Constitution, By-Laws and Officers." (It is
not required by law to have them.)

So what could be clearer ?

The U.L.T. per se, in its work, has no need for, nor is it
attached to the facilities provided by a fiduciary that handles
funds and property for it. A trust is a trust. Trustees are
there to act trustworthy.

What is bizarre about that?

Dal