“Defendant's Brief Outline of Her Case”

Pre-Trial Order

Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra 

October 30, 1998 
  

“Defendant's Brief Outline of Her Case” 

In their Motion for Injunction, plaintiff Foundation seeks to characterize Ms. Maaherra as a crazed religious fanatic who believes in spirits and doesn't respect any of the secular laws of America. However, Ms. Maaherra's beliefs are consistent with those who have written our country's laws. Indeed, George Washington is famous for his prophecies from spiritual visions. Thomas Jefferson wrote a book of the Sayings of Jesus. The very people who wrote America's Constitution made room for divine revelation, which is what the Urantia Papers purports itself to be. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the validity of the copyright was upheld by the Ninth Circuit [Footnote: In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals assumed certain facts that were contrary to the record. On these assumptions, it upheld the validity of the Urantia Foundation's copyright.], Ms. Maaherra believes that the foundation is not entitled to the requested injunction. Ms. Maaherra will show that the public interest does not favor an injunction, and that the Foundation has engaged in conduct which does not entitle it to the equitable relief requested. 

The Foundation has, throughout its history, used its asserted copyright to intimidate Urantians from utilizing the basic text of their religion. The Foundation has extended its claim of copyright far beyond that to which it reasonably is entitled under the law in an attempt to control the private religious beliefs and activities of Urantians. 

Even if the Foundation is not found to have engaged in inequitable Conduct, Ms. Maaherra nevertheless believes that an injunction is not warranted in this case in view of the great public interest in aintaining the accessibility of the Urantia Book. It is undisputed that the actual text that appears in the Urantia Book was not written by the Foundation or any purported predecessor. Both parties agree that the actual words came directly from spiritual sources and first were materialized by these non-human entities. Thus, the essential words appearing in the Urantia Book are not subject to copyright protection and must freely be available to all. 

The Foundation's copyright was upheld on the basis that the Foundation's predecessor somehow compiled the revelatory papers into the Urantia Book. Thus, at best the Urantia Foundation's copyright is very thin. The creative effort of the spiritual revelators was far greater than the minimal, ministerial work of printing the completed papers. The very limited contribution of the foundation does not entitle it to absolute control of the Book. 

The Urantia Book is the foundation of a relatively new, but rapidly emerging religion. In the Urantia religion, the Book itself is considered to be a revelation from God in book form, exactly in the way that Jesus Christ is considered a revelation from God in human form in the Christian religion. Thus, the Book is the essential element of the religion whose significance exceeds that of texts such as the New Testament in Christian religions. 

Ms. Maaherra will show that the Foundation has attempted to suppress distribution of the Urantia Book. For example, the Foundation has refused to sell books to willing buyers the Foundation did not like. Indeed, after soliciting funds from the general public with the promise of wide distribution of the Book, the Foundation delisted the Book from major book distributors. The Foundation has refused to print an inviolate text since 1955. Although the Foundation recently sought to liberalize its distribution policies in response to this court's initial ruling, there can be no assurance that the foundation will not revert to its prior policies if it is awarded an injunction upon conclusion of this litigation. 

In view of the limited contribution by the foundation and its predecessors and the Urantia Book's importance and significance to the public, the public interest dictates that no injunction should be granted in this case. 

In the event that the court were to find an injunction to be appropriate, the injunction must carefully be crafted to expressly preserve Ms. Maaherra's right to utilize the public domain papers that were printed in the Urantia Book. Indeed, large portions of the Urantia Papers (about 20%) are quotes from the Bible. The Complaint in this case sought an injunction against using “all or part of the text of The URANTIA Book or unauthorized derivative works based thereon.” Ms. Maaherra contended that she had the right to use the whole text in the form published by the Foundation. The Ninth Circuit seemed to say that the rights of the parties are somewhere in the middle, based on the nature of the human authorship contributed by the Foundation. The extent of the human authorship is among the facts that remain to be decided, which will involve an evidentiary presentation as to the history and origin of the book. 

Even after the Ninth Circuit's decision in its favor, the Urantia Foundation is not entitled to the broad injunction sought in the Complaint, prohibiting the use of any part of the Urantia Book. 

Clearly, some of the activities the foundation sought to enjoin are now permitted. At the hearing in this case, Ms. Maaherra will show that various portions of the book were printed exactly in the form and compiled form in which they were received. For example, the evidence will show that the entire Part IV of the Book was revealed as a single revelation, and other Urantia Papers were delivered in their individual entireties by the superhuman revelators. Thus, in deciding the issues raised by the Complaint, the Court must determine what conduct Ms. Maaherra may engage in after this case has ended.