Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00424)

Dany,

Algeo's dealing with John Cooper and his co-workers, among them some fine
theosophists of long standing, and his falsification of the Blavatsky
letters is REASON ENOUGH not to vote for him.

BTW, why not publish John Cooper's editions of the Blavatsky letters online?

It would help the truthsearchers and Blavatsky students and would set the
Algeos mate.

Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dany Cooper
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: Theos-World Presidential election.



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
Date: 26 November 2006 8:06:03 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World HPB Collected Correspondence
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.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]