Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00172)

Hi, Danny:

Thanks for the post.

I am reminded of the incident how Col Olcott dealt with a member's family
when the member bequeathed his wealth to the TS leaving nothing for the
family. Col Olcott, who is a lawyer and who worked all his prime of life for
TS, knew the money was TS's. When he saw that it was not just for the TS to
take the money putting the survivors of the member in financial
difficulties, he returned all of it to the family. No wonder Col Olcott was
chosen to lead the movement, even though he had strong personal draw backs.
Have you read about him. He was a smoker, meat-eater, prior to coming into
contact with Theosophy was a man of the world -- spent time in bars and
women etc.

In Texas, USA where I live,  if anyone shows up at the front door uninvited
and refuses to leave, we call the police and they will arrest the person for
trespassing. In rural areas, people here have also been shot for
trespassing. Just for your information.

mkr

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Dany Cooper <dany@netspace.net.au> wrote:

>
> I would like you all to re-read the post at the bottom of this page
> when considering Mr Algeo
> as a new president.
>
> As the oldest child of the late John Cooper I watched my mother
> Shirley Cooper
> suffer extreme anxiety and depression as a result of her dealings
> with Mr Algeo immediately after my
> father's death.
>
> She was also particularly distressed that in the forward/preface to
> the Blavatsky Letters Volume One,
> he questioned the quality of my fathers research.
>
> To quote Dr Tillett?
>
> I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions on the morality
> ? if
> not the legality ? of using the property of a dead man, against the
> wishes
> of his widow and children.
>
> I watched a very healthy woman, in mind and body, who ate mostly
> organic food, and did not drink
> or smoke, die of pancreatic cancer. I feel that stress was a large
> contributor to her disease.
>
> Warm wishes to you all.
>
> Danielle Cooper.
>
> I also enclose a further remark from Dr Tillett ?
>
> During the months after John's untimely death I spoke with Shirley
> frequently and visited her (alas, all too infrequently). The stress
> and distress she experienced as a result of unsolicited and unwanted
> communications by telephone and letter from Dr Algeo caused her great
> unhappiness, and me great anger. She was positively frightened by his
> announcements of his impending arrival or the appearance of some
> "agent" to "recover" archival material. Shirley's time of
> mourning the loss of a beloved husband and partner was cruelly
> disturbed by heartless and hurtful interruptions. The peaceful
> solitude of her rural retreat was violated by "suggestions" of an
> imminent intrusion. Even at this distance in time, my outrage is
> almost immeasurable as I remember the pain she was caused. I hardly
> need to note that neither Dr Algeo nor any of his "agents"
> communicated with me. It has often been said that bullies choose
> their targets carefully.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: gregory@zeta.org.au <gregory%40zeta.org.au>
> Date: 26 November 2006 8:06:03 AM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Theos-World HPB Collected Correspondence
> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> John recently stated: "My interpretation of Tillett's explanation
> was that
> Coopers wife, in her great time of loss and grieving was pressured and
> prevailed upon by the
> Organization and gave in and signed over the "copyright" as legal
> heir and
> successor
> in spite of the views and reservations that others had or have that
> might
> have been be perfectly justified."
>
> This statement is incorrect. There were certainly attempts to pressure
> John's widow to do what is suggested. She was deeply distressed and
> felt
> quite threatened by actions taken by Dr Algeo and others on his behalf.
> However, she gave away nothing and signed nothing.
>
> Following John's death, as the Literary Executor of his Estate, and
> acting
> upon instructions from his heirs, I advised Dr Algeo that: (1) all
> intellectual property rights in the manuscript of the HPB correspondence
> had now passed to John's heirs; (2) I was acting on their behalf;
> (3) the
> heirs were fully prepared to allow the publication of the manuscript
> (and
> to provide copies of all additional research materials collected by John
> to facilitate the publication of this volume and subsequent volumes);
> (4)
> however they required an undertaking that (a) John's role as editor
> and
> their intellectual property rights were to be acknowledged in the first
> volume, and (b) that no changes would be made in John's original work
> without their prior approval. No reply was ever received by me or the
> family, nor was the correspondence acknowledged. I subsequently wrote
> again ? and eventually to all members of the Committee involved in he
> proposed publication for whom I had contact details ? informing them
> that,
> if the original conditions required by the family were not met, any
> use of
> John's work, directly or indirectly, would be in breach of their
> intellectual property rights. No member of the Committee
> acknowledged, let
> alone replied to, that correspondence. A letter was received from a firm
> of attorneys in the USA appearing to claiming, with John's death, no
> rights existed. If this is what was being claimed, it is a legal
> nonsense
> under both Australian and US law.
>
> The publication proceeded with the claim implying that it made no use of
> John's research. However, taking the published volume and John's PhD
> thesis (which was the original work he submitted to Dr Algeo), and
> comparing them page by page, the parallels are obvious.
>
> Although we had taken advice from a US attorney on the options for legal
> action to protect John's work and the family's rights, the costs
> involved
> would have been vast, and the family did not have access to the
> resources
> of a large organization (like the TS in America) on which to draw.
>
> I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions on the morality
> ? if
> not the legality ? of using the property of a dead man, against the
> wishes
> of his widow and children.
>
> Dr Gregory Tillett
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]