00001 {12:14:03pm}
01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
02 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
03
04 MICHAEL FOUNDATION, INC.,
04
05 Plaintiff,
05
06 vs. CASE NO. CV-00-0885-W
06
07 URANTIA FOUNDATION, et al.,
07
08 Defendants.
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 HAD MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2001
13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEE R. WEST, SENIOR JUDGE PRESIDING
13
14 PRETRIAL HEARING
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19 A P P E A R A N C E S
20 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. ROSS A. PLOURDE
20 MR. MURRAY E. ABOWITZ
21 Attorneys at Law
21 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
22
22
23 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. STEVEN G. HILL
23 MR. PETER SCHOENTHALER
24 MR. ERIC MAURER
24 Attorneys at Law
25 Atlanta, Georgia
25
00002 {12:14:03pm}
01 PROCEEDINGS:
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 THE COURT: We'll go on the record and I suppose to
04 do that we better note the appearances first. For the
05 plaintiff?
06 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, Ross Plourde and Murray
07 Abowitz.
08 THE COURT: And for the defendants?
09 MR. HILL: Steve Hill, Peter Schoenthaler, and Eric
10 Maurer, M-A-U-R-E-R.
11 THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else need to note their
12 appearances?
13 Okay.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Could we show who is also present,
15 Judge?
16 MR. HILL: Also present are Tonia Baney and Mindy
17 Williams from Urantia Foundation.
18 THE COURT: All right. Your motions in limine first,
19 I believe.
20 MR. PLOURDE: Okay, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: No, I believe they're Steven's, aren't
22 they?
23 MR. PLOURDE: We've got motions in limine on --
24 THE COURT: Both sides? All right. Let's start with
25 exhibit 67. That's Steve's.
00003 {12:14:04pm}
01 MR. HILL: Okay. Those are the believer affidavits,
02 Judge, if I recall correctly.
03 MR. PLOURDE: Maybe I can short circuit that one.
04 THE COURT: I was going to say, isn't that moot now?
05 MR. PLOURDE: Well, not necessarily, Judge. Let me
06 address that just to perhaps head off a problem. Part of the
07 issue with respect to the anti-cybersquatting act case is the
08 strength of their mark, the distinctiveness. That's one of the
09 issues that goes into determining whether or not Michael
10 Foundation and McMullan acted in bad faith, is the
11 distinctiveness of their mark. So evidence that would
12 establish that it was generic would go to the distinctiveness
13 of the mark and rebut the bad faith allegation by establishing
14 -- if we were able to establish that it was a religion, then
15 that would establish the mark as generic for those purposes and
16 rebut the distinctiveness.
17 Just as a matter of procedure at trial, we have decided at
18 this point not to argue that the name Urantia is the name of a
19 religion or that Urantia denotes someone that adheres to the
20 Urantia beliefs, and so I think that does moot that particular
21 issue.
22 I would expect Mr. McMullan to testify that he believes
23 that The Urantia Book forms a basis of his religion but I don't
24 think that goes to necessarily the genericness of the mark in
25 that particular instance. Do you agree?
00004 {12:14:10pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: May I add something?
02 THE COURT: Sure.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: I believe that there will also be
04 testimony elicited that there is a recognition that there are
05 those that recognize The Urantia Book as the basis of a
06 religion but it won't go any further than that and we do not
07 intend to use these exhibits unless in rebuttal.
08 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. Do you want to
09 respond to what they've suggested or conceded?
10 As I understand it now, you're saying, yes, the exhibit
11 should be excludable, but that you all may refer to this issue
12 somewhat in establishing infringement or the good or bad
13 faith --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Correct.
15 THE COURT: -- issue on that point. Does that
16 summarize what your position is?
17 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
19 THE COURT: All right. Steven, how do you feel about
20 that?
21 MR. HILL: Well, as I read the Court's instructions,
22 it looks like the distinctiveness issue is resolved by the
23 incontestability, so I don't think that they're probative in
24 terms of showing the distinctiveness or nondistinctiveness of
25 the mark for the cybersquatting purposes. That's relatively
00005 {12:14:13pm}
01 established in what case law does exist on the cybersquatting
02 act. We have a fundamental problem, Your Honor, with the
03 nature of the exhibits themselves, the quality of the exhibits.
04 None of the declarants were listed.
05 THE COURT: Are you talking about 67 itself now?
06 MR. HILL: Yeah, yeah. The quality of the exhibit.
07 None of the declarants on the exhibits were named as
08 witnesses. There's been no opportunity to cross-examine.
09 About as probative as the statements get is to say that they
10 believe the contents of the Urantia Book form the basis of
11 their personal religion. They don't combine -- my concern, in
12 part, is the combination of 100 things saying this is my
13 personal religion.
14 THE COURT: We may be dancing around an issue here.
15 My understanding is that I will sustain a motion in limine to
16 exclude exhibit number 67. You're attempting to avoid that
17 ruling running afoul of offering some testimony; is that
18 correct?
19 MR. ABOWITZ: That's correct.
20 THE COURT: Now, let's spell out so the record and
21 Steve and you and I can understand what that concern is and as
22 precisely as possible so that when I get through here and say,
23 "The motion in limine is sustained as to exhibit 67," you will
24 understand what you can or cannot testify about.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, if you grant the motion, we won't
00006 {12:14:15pm}
01 use any of exhibit 67, but I don't view that order of the court
02 as precluding us from addressing the issue of Mr. McMullan's
03 religion or from anybody else --
04 THE COURT: Now, his won't be 67. His will be live
05 testimony; am I correct about that?
06 MR. ABOWITZ: Correct.
07 THE COURT: And yours as well, Ross? Are we talking
08 about separate --
09 MR. ABOWITZ: We're talking about the same thing
10 here.
11 THE COURT: And you say the exhibit itself is
12 excluded but his ability will be to testify to what now? Let's
13 spell that out and get some examples of it so we can find
14 out so I can rule on it in advance or whether I need to just
15 rule on it at the time.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, it has nothing to do with the
17 exhibit. Howard McMullan will testify that The Urantia Book is
18 the basis of his religion. I anticipate that if there are
19 witnesses called by Urantia Foundation, that on cross-examine
20 they will say that they acknowledge they are people that base
21 their religion on The Urantia Book. End of story.
22 THE COURT: That's testimony, not the exhibit?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Right.
24 THE COURT: What's your concern?
25 MR. HILL: We'll take it as it comes.
00007 {12:14:17pm}
01 THE COURT: Okay.
02 MR. HILL: We'll take it as it comes, Judge.
03 THE COURT: All right. Everybody understand the
04 Court's ruling then? I'm sustaining a motion in limine with
05 regard to exhibit number 67.
06 All right. Let's move on to motion to exclude evidence
07 relating to settlement and compromise. That's your motion, I
08 believe.
09 MR. HILL: Yes, Judge.
10 Our position is that there have been some settlement
11 negotiations relating to the cybersquatting claims. I envision
12 that what they're going to try to do is characterize those
13 negotiations as they offered us a free ride so why are we
14 here. The problem with that, Judge, is that while Rule 408
15 does have some exceptions, you can't bring in the settlement
16 negotiations to negative the liability or negate the damages at
17 issue. And the only thing that that testimony is probative on
18 is negativing bad faith, which is an element of proving the
19 claim, and negativing the amount of damages that the jury ought
20 to consider. So, I see it as going directly to the merits.
21 There are cases in the insurance bad faith arena where
22 settlement negotiations have been excluded. I'll cite you one
23 on the record, Clemco Industries v. Commercial Union, 665
24 F.Supp, 816, where bad faith is the issue for liability. The
25 existence of what might be characterized as a great settlement
00008 {12:14:21pm}
01 offer can't come in for proof of the existence or nonexistence
02 of bad faith.
03 THE COURT: Who wants to respond?
04 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, I think it's clear that the
05 standard is if it's offered for another purpose other than
06 establishing or rebutting liability, that it can come in.
07 And I think the purpose --
08 THE COURT: Well, the general rule is that you can't
09 offer it, and you understand that. Negotiations, compromise
10 offers and so forth are not admissible in any form, unless
11 what?
12 MR. PLOURDE: Unless --
13 THE COURT: Spell out to me what exception you're
14 going to offer what evidence so that --
15 MR. PLOURDE: Unless they're --
16 THE COURT: Okay. Now, spell it out in some detail,
17 Ross.
18 MR. PLOURDE: Unless they're offered for another
19 purpose. The rule excludes -- I mean, it isn't a matter of
20 excluding them all --
21 THE COURT: You're going to say to them, "Look, we
22 offered to settle this thing or give them almost a free ride."
23 What --
24 MR. ABOWITZ: We offered to give them back.
25 THE COURT: Offered to give it back.
00009 {12:14:24pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: First at my cost of getting them, and
02 that didn't work, so then I said, "Well, you can have them and
03 I'll eat that cost."
04 THE COURT: Have what? Now, spell that out.
05 MR. PLOURDE: Domain names.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: The three domain names.
07 THE COURT: The three names: Urantia, Urantian, and
08 so forth?
09 MR. PLOURDE: Right.
10 THE COURT: And you said you'll take -- first, your
11 offer was we'll take what and give them back to you?
12 MR. PLOURDE: The $30 -- the domain name was the
13 cost, give or take, was the cost of registering.
14 THE COURT: Now, who's going to be testifying to
15 this?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: Mr. McMullan.
17 THE COURT: Mr. McMullan. He said, "We got them, it
18 cost us 30-something dollars, and we said if you'll give us
19 that, we'll give them back to you."
20 Now, what are you offering that evidence for, the
21 testimony for?
22 MR. PLOURDE: The statute says that they have to
23 prove that we registered those or used them with a bad faith
24 intent to profit. So the question is: Did we have a bad faith
25 intent to profit? And if we're offering them to just give it
00010 {12:14:26pm}
01 to them, I think that rebuts the bad faith intent to profit.
02 THE COURT: We seem to have a dispute that --
03 MR. PLOURDE: We don't have any -- I'm sorry.
04 THE COURT: We seem to have a dispute because he says
05 the fact it does not -- that it is offered to rebut bad faith
06 is not an exception to the rule that they can't be offered.
07 MR. HILL: Not when bad faith is a part of the
08 elements of the claim.
09 THE COURT: Now, do we have an argument about what
10 the law is in that regard?
11 MR. ABOWITZ: We do.
12 MR. PLOURDE: I think we do, Judge. I mean,
13 unfortunately he didn't share his case with me before I came
14 over, so I can't respond to that specific case.
15 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Do you have any
16 cases that say no, that it is not -- that it can be used where
17 bad faith is an issue?
18 MR. PLOURDE: No, Your Honor, but --
19 THE COURT: Okay. Let me get Steve's case and then
20 we'll just have to -- and give you an opportunity to cite any
21 cases to the contrary and we'll get it ruled on.
22 Do you have --
23 MR. HILL: I've already cited it on the record, Your
24 Honor.
25 May I add one more statement?
00011 {12:14:28pm}
01 THE COURT: Sure.
02 MR. HILL: And it's just exactly what has happened
03 here, these discussions occurred once the litigation was
04 already underway, once the claims had been filed in court.
05 There is a tremendous disagreement over these conversations and
06 they exclusively occurred between counsel. Mr. McMullan is
07 going to get up there and he's going to say he offered them for
08 $30. That's not my take at all, Judge. I'd be happy -- it's
09 back in my hotel but I would be happy to show the Court the
10 letter that I sent confirming that there was an abstract offer
11 made that we would pay something.
12 THE COURT: Let me tell you where I'm operating
13 from. I'm operating from the basis that none of this is going
14 to be admissible because it is an offer of compromise,
15 settlement, so forth, clearly not admissible unless you can
16 show me, contrary to his authority, and some authority that
17 this fits the bad-faith exception and so forth, fits clearly
18 within this. And I'm going to give you an opportunity to do
19 that, a very brief opportunity, but as of right now I'm ruling
20 that none of that testimony is admissible until you all present
21 me some authority to the contrary.
22 MR. PLOURDE: What's the case cite again?
23 MR. HILL: I would also like to cite Rule 408 itself,
24 Judge, because the exceptions that follow follow from the
25 fact that you cannot --
00012 {12:14:30pm}
01 THE COURT: You better note very quickly what you're
02 relying on because my clerk over here is making a note of
03 that.
04 MR. HILL: The specific --
05 THE COURT: 408 and the cite? What's the case cite?
06 MR. HILL: The specific language of 408 says that it
07 can't go to invalidity of the claim or its amount.
08 THE COURT: Now, was that cited in your underlying
09 brief here? I looked through these yesterday. Did you cite
10 that or not?
11 MR. HILL: We cited the rule, Judge, in our opening
12 brief. The case is a case that I just pulled off last night.
13 THE COURT: Give us that cite.
14 MR. HILL: 665 F.Supp. 816.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: 816?
16 MR. HILL: Uh-huh.
17 THE COURT: All we need to do is you need to notify
18 your shop at the first break or something to run that and be
19 working on that and we'll get it done sometime before we start
20 this case, get it ruled on. Okay?
21 Now then, ready to go to the next one?
22 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir. Which is --
23 THE COURT: Michael Foundation and Harry McMullan's
24 exhibits 23, 37, 63, 97, 99 and 131 filed under seal. That's
25 your motion, I believe, Steve.
00013 {12:14:32pm}
01 MR. HILL: Yeah. I'm going to defer to co-counsel
02 here.
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, each of these exhibits
04 for various reasons independently are either irrelevant and/or
05 even if there is some minor relevancy in the exhibit, then
06 they're prejudicial.
07 Let's take each exhibit individually.
08 THE COURT: 23 first.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Sure. Exhibit 23, they want to
10 bring it in to show that Mo Siegel wants his mail service
11 restored because he's getting negative e-mails from people that
12 favor McMullan and he says he needs good vibes and
13 reenforcement. I don't see what relevance that possibly could
14 have.
15 THE COURT: Mo Siegel is not a witness in this case;
16 is that correct?
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He is not.
18 THE COURT: And the document that you're objecting to
19 is a document -- an exhibit itself in which he states what
20 precisely?
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He says, "What is happening with
22 the Fellowship letter? When will it go out and what will it
23 say? PS, I am still cut off. The CC and IUA list period.
24 Please restore my mail service. I am getting so many negative
25 e-mails from people who favor Harry. I need some good vibes
00014 {12:14:34pm}
01 and reinforcement from the CC and IUA list."
02 THE COURT: Your objection to that is based upon what
03 again?
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It has absolutely no relevance.
05 What does Mo Siegel having negative e-mails from other people
06 who support Harry have anything to do with the case that we're
07 here for today?
08 THE COURT: All right. Is this being offered as
09 evidence or as rebuttal evidence and, if so, what purpose would
10 you be offering it for?
11 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, for instance, they have
12 survey evidence. They have --
13 THE COURT: Well, they haven't got it yet. They're
14 going to attempt to offer it. We haven't got it in yet. Tell
15 me what their survey --
16 MR. HILL: I appreciate that vote of confidence,
17 Judge.
18 THE COURT: Are you agreeing the survey evidence
19 should come in, Ross, or not?
20 MR. PLOURDE: No, but if it does, what we've got is
21 Mr. Siegel out there basically trying to drum up support for
22 his position.
23 THE COURT: That's what I mean. Is this something
24 that you're going to offer regardless of what happens or is it
25 only in rebuttal to the survey evidence now?
00015 {12:14:35pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: We don't know in the case in chief.
02 THE COURT: Okay. Now then, if they don't get the
03 survey evidence in, then it will not be offered; am I correct
04 in that regard?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
06 THE COURT: All right. Now, do you all want to argue
07 the survey evidence now or a little bit later on?
08 MR. HILL: I would just say that -- I mean, can they
09 explain what the relationship that popularity has to a survey?
10 THE COURT: Well, if they're not going to offer it,
11 I'm not interested in it unless and until --
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If I may --
13 THE COURT: Listen, I'm not too crazy about doing a
14 bunch of pretrial rulings that prohibit or proscribe evidence
15 when there's all this speculation about whether it's ever going
16 to be offered or under what circumstance, and me sitting in
17 this chambers here trying to envision how this case is going to
18 develop. Consequently, I'm not all that crazy about motions in
19 limine, and I started the damned things 30 years ago in this
20 part of the world, but I'm not going to get all that hemmed in
21 by motions in limine unless they're pretty damned clearly not
22 going to be admissible under any circumstances, I'm not going
23 to sustain them.
24 Now, having said that, let's leave this the way it is. If
25 you don't get your survey evidence in, then if you do, they'll
00016 {12:14:37pm}
01 offer them as rebuttal as opposed to that and then we'll have a
02 hearing if we need to, or over your objection we'll determine
03 what relevance they have, and I can better understand whether
04 or not they're relevant at that time. So I guess the thing I'm
05 saying is that the motion in limine is sustained with regard to
06 these to the extent that they will not be offered in their
07 evidence in chief and then we'll take up their admissibility if
08 and when the survey evidence is met. Fair enough? Everybody
09 hear and understand that?
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
11 THE COURT: All right. Is that true of all these
12 exhibits now 23, 37, 39 --
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 37, they've withdrawn from their
14 case in chief; is that correct?
15 THE COURT: 37, withdrawn?
16 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir.
17 THE COURT: Okay. What about 63, 97?
18 MR. PLOURDE: We skipped 39.
19 THE COURT: Oh, I did. Okay. How about 39, is that
20 the same ruling?
21 MR. PLOURDE: No, sir.
22 THE COURT: Huh?
23 MR. PLOURDE: No, sir.
24 THE COURT: All right. Tell me about 39.
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 39?
00017 {12:14:39pm}
01 MR. HILL: What is 39
02 THE COURT: "E-mail from trustee Siegel to show that
03 trustee disagreed about the possible separate printing of part
04 IV of The Urantia Book."
05 MR. PLOURDE: I have no idea, Judge. My mistake.
06 You're right. 39 is not --
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 63.
08 MR. PLOURDE: 63?
09 THE COURT: So 39 is not going to be offered unless
10 and until the survey is admissible?
11 MR. PLOURDE: No, sir, 39 is not covered by this
12 motion. I have it in my notes that it was and I'm just
13 incorrect.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: That's a different motion, isn't it?
15 MR. PLOURDE: I think it is.
16 THE COURT: That's right. Well, I don't have it
17 either. 23, 37, 63, 97 and 99, and then we have a 39 down
18 here.
19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 139.
20 THE COURT: Huh? Is it 139?
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: The last exhibit in that motion is
22 139, Your Honor.
23 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, if you could just forgive me for
24 that.
25 THE COURT: Huh?
00018 {12:14:40pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: It was just an outright mistake. The
02 next one on this motion is number 63.
03 THE COURT: 53?
04 MR. PLOURDE: 63, Judge.
05 THE COURT: 63. All right. You're going to offer
06 that for what purpose?
07 MR. PLOURDE: In that --
08 THE COURT: If they get the survey evidence in?
09 MR. PLOURDE: No, sir, it doesn't relate to the
10 survey evidence at all.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. PLOURDE: What this is is a letter from
13 Mr. Siegel to Richard Keeler, who is the president of Urantia
14 Foundation, and basically it does two things. The relevance
15 from our standpoint relates to the Asoka Foundation which was a
16 foundation that was established by Mr. McMullan some years ago
17 to assist in publishing certain Urantia-related material. Part
18 of their evidence, we believe, is to establish that
19 Mr. McMullan has just created all of these front organizations
20 that serve no purpose other than to advance his ultimate goal
21 of depriving them of their copyright.
22 Mr. Siegel's letter says something to the effect that he's
23 talking about circumstances that existed at Urantia Foundation
24 and he says this is why organizations like Asoka Foundation
25 have been founded. We believe it indicates that Asoka
00019 {12:14:44pm}
01 Foundation did serve a legitimate purpose other than to act as
02 a front for Mr. McMullan and we think it's admissible for that
03 purpose.
04 THE COURT: And your objection?
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, it's hearsay and they
06 can't --
07 THE COURT: Pardon?
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It's hearsay. It's inadmissible
09 hearsay. It's from Mo Siegel who is not going to testify.
10 MR. PLOURDE: It's a document that they produced to
11 us. It's written by --
12 THE COURT: A Urantia Foundation trustee?
13 MR. PLOURDE: He is now a trustee. I think he was
14 not --
15 THE COURT: You've made that argument -- huh?
16 MR. PLOURDE: I think he was not a trustee at the
17 time that --
18 THE COURT: Well, that wouldn't fall within the rules
19 of admission then, statements he made outside the court, unless
20 he was somehow a representative of the --
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Harry can testify to that.
22 MR. PLOURDE: We would have to put it on through
23 Mr. McMullan or Mr. Keeler.
24 THE COURT: Pardon?
25 MR. PLOURDE: We would have to put it on through
00020 {12:14:45pm}
01 Mr. McMullan or Mr. Keeler.
02 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to sustain the motion
03 with regard to 63 then. It appears to be classic hearsay.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: But, Your Honor, a recipient of the
05 document will be here as a witness.
06 THE COURT: Well, that wouldn't allow him to testify.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: That he got it?
08 THE COURT: Well, he can testify he got it but he
09 couldn't testify as to what it said if you're introducing it
10 for the purpose of proving the truth. It's a classic hearsay
11 deal.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Yeah, but we can prove that he got it.
13 It's being offered for a purpose other than the truth of what
14 it says. He got it and he was aware of what it says.
15 THE COURT: Now, that's a boot strap that doesn't
16 make any sense. You say, "Look, we're not offering it for the
17 proof of the truth of the statement therein but he got it and
18 he believed it and so forth."
19 MR. ABOWITZ: I didn't say he believed it. I said he
20 got it and was aware of what it said.
21 THE COURT: And then don't say what it says. You
22 can't put that in. That's what you're trying to convey to the
23 jury is what it said. You can tell him he got an e-mail dated
24 so and so and so and so but you can't recite the hearsay
25 statements made in that, Murray.
00021 {12:14:47pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: What if he reacted to it?
02 THE COURT: Huh?
03 MR. ABOWITZ: What if he reacted to it?
04 THE COURT: What kind of reaction are you talking
05 about? "I got it, I read it, and then I called so and so and I
06 said so and so."
07 MR. ABOWITZ: That's admissible.
08 THE COURT: He can testify to that. He can testify
09 to that. There isn't anything wrong with him -- as long as who
10 he was talking to is somebody in the opposing party. There's
11 nothing wrong with that. He's testifying about what he did and
12 what he said. Now, it may have been based upon something but
13 you can't recite what they told him, ergo, I called him. He
14 just said, "I got an e-mail and I called them and said so and
15 so." All right?
16 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, if, for instance, they call
17 Mr. Siegel, you wouldn't preclude us -- because he is listed as
18 a witness, and if they call him, you wouldn't preclude us from
19 using it in cross-examination?
20 THE COURT: What he said?
21 MR. PLOURDE: Right.
22 THE COURT: If it's inconsistent or something with
23 what he now says, you can use a previous -- a prior
24 inconsistent statement as you could with any witness. If he
25 said something in writing in an e-mail that's inconsistent with
00022 {12:14:49pm}
01 what his testimony is, certainly you can use that.
02 Okay. Do we need anything further on 39 -- or 63?
03 97?
04 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, one of their witnesses is
05 Carolyn Kendall. Excuse me. This is an e-mail from Kwan Choi
06 to another person. Kwan Choi is a trustee.
07 THE COURT: Kwan Choi said she fudges the facts and
08 she's not always complete and her statements are often partial
09 and she fudges facts.
10 MR. PLOURDE: And she's going to be a witness.
11 THE COURT: And she's going to be a witness. Now,
12 are you using -- are you attempting to use Kwan Choi's
13 testimony or statement in here to affect her credibility?
14 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir.
15 THE COURT: All right. Now, Kwan Choi is not going
16 to be a witness to this -- you're offering a statement made by
17 Kwan Choi out of court to prove the truth of the statement made
18 therein that she's partial and fudges facts. Why is that not a
19 classic --
20 MR. ABOWITZ: He's a trustee.
21 MR. PLOURDE: He's a trustee. He was a trustee --
22 THE COURT: Okay. Now, that's back to the issue of
23 whether he was in such a representative position that it would
24 be an admission against interest.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Exactly.
00023 {12:14:51pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, they got this
02 document -- the two people in this conversation are Kwan Choi,
03 a trustee, and Bud Kagan, who is an individual -- who is their
04 witness who they have not called as a witness in this case.
05 The document itself says "Printed for Bud." They didn't get
06 this document from us. I don't know where it is. I don't know
07 if they went and printed it and typed it up themselves.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: Come on.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I have no idea. And they're not
10 going to be able to prove that to the Court.
11 THE COURT: In other words, you're saying the
12 statement, you can't even establish the authenticity or
13 validity of the statement as being Choi's; is that correct?
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: Subject to that, that's our problem if
16 that's going to be -- if there's an objection to authenticity.
17 THE COURT: You're not going to have Kwan Choi
18 testify?
19 MR. ABOWITZ: No, but Mr. Kagan can testify to the
20 authenticity of it.
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He's not --
22 THE COURT: Whoa, we're getting off into some weird
23 deals. So and so said -- you're trying to attack the
24 credibility of Kendall's testimony, aren't you?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: "Did you get this from Mr. Kwan Choi?"
00024 {12:14:53pm}
01 "Yes, I did."
02 THE COURT: Who are you going to ask that?
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Mr. Kagan.
04 THE COURT: Mr. Kendall?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Kagan. Kagan.
06 MR. PLOURDE: The person to whom it was sent.
07 THE COURT: Is he going to testify?
08 MR. ABOWITZ: We have taken his deposition.
09 THE COURT: Was it testified to in the deposition?
10 MR. PLOURDE: I don't know, Judge.
11 MR. HILL: I don't believe it was, Judge. On top of
12 that, he's not on the witness list. This is a conversation
13 between a trustee --
14 THE COURT: Well, I'm really really having difficulty
15 understanding the admissibility of this.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, the worst part about
17 it is this is the last part of the e-mail from which -- and I'm
18 going to -- the earlier e-mail from Bud Kagan, which Kwan is
19 responding to, has some very negative things about Richard
20 Keeler. He calls Richard Kyler a scum bag, illegitimate, et
21 cetera.
22 To put this in context, we're going to have to read this
23 into the record. It's prejudicial.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Most evidence is.
25 THE COURT: Almost all evidence is.
00025 {12:14:55pm}
01 MR. HILL: Too probative, you would say.
02 THE COURT: I'm not worried about the prejudicial
03 effect of it but I am worried about the hearsay aspect of it.
04 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, you know, I understand your
05 point. If we can't properly identify it, then you're not going
06 to let it in.
07 THE COURT: Well, here's what I'm going to do: I'm
08 going to sustain the motion in limine with regard to that
09 exhibit without prejudice to you out of the hearing of the jury
10 and at sidebar conference, if you believe you all can
11 establish -- or that other testimony and so forth has now
12 established some basis for admitting it, I'll let you reoffer
13 it at sidebar. You don't make any reference to it, arguments
14 or anything else and don't make any reference to the jury about
15 it until you've presented it at sidebar and the Court has
16 admitted it. Okay?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, next is plaintiff's
19 exhibit 98. 98 is also -- also an e-mail from Kwan Choi --
20 between Kwan Choi and Bud Kagan, back and forth. I don't --
21 again, I think if they're willing to stipulate to the same
22 ruling, we can do that.
23 MR. PLOURDE: I think 97, 98 and 99 are all --
24 THE COURT: All in the same category?
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: You withdrew 99.
00026 {12:14:57pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: We withdrew 99. That's right.
02 THE COURT: All right. 97 and 98, subject to the
03 same ruling, without prejudice to your reoffering them at
04 sidebar, but they're sustained.
05 31 -- 131.
06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, this is a long letter
07 dated in '97 from Mo Siegel to trustees at Urantia Foundation.
08 It talks about a lot of things. It talks about -- this
09 occurred -- to put this in context -- during the Maaherra case,
10 right after The Foundation had lost the copyright at the
11 district court level. What it is basically saying is Mo Siegel
12 is saying things such as, "Here I have some great ideas on how
13 maybe we can handle the marks going forward and the
14 copyright." Okay? Unfortunately, he wasn't a trustee at the
15 time.
16 THE COURT: Siegel is not going to be a witness
17 again. Let me get reoriented here. Not going to be a
18 witness. And he's written a letter of some kind that you
19 contend is hearsay and you say he was not in any representative
20 capacity --
21 MR. HILL: No, he was with Mr. McMullan.
22 THE COURT: -- at the time. What is your kind of
23 exception to the classic hearsay situation? Is it being
24 offered to prove the truth of the statement made?
25 MR. PLOURDE: We have withdrawn Siegel as a witness
00027 {12:14:59pm}
01 just recently in our case in chief. Judge, you know, again, I
02 assume that if we exclude it, it's going to be excluded for
03 purposes of our case in chief. And if they call Mr. Siegel,
04 we're going to be able to cross-examine him on it.
05 THE COURT: Well, I mean, I'm not going to get into
06 that. It depends on what he testifies to and so forth. But
07 I'll just, again, make the same ruling, that it will not be
08 admissible, referred to in any way, exhibit 131, until and
09 unless you approach sidebar and say, "Judge, this is now -- we
10 ought to be able to admit this and refer to it simply because
11 of the testimony that has been brought out on direct." Is that
12 fair enough? Everybody understand it?
13 MR. PLOURDE: Yes.
14 THE COURT: All right. Lay testimony. This is
15 your -- again, your motion.
16 MR. HILL: Right, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Outline what it is so we'll have a little
18 understanding.
19 MR. HILL: Sure. Sure.
20 During his deposition, Mr. McMullan testified that he had
21 received advice of counsel regarding the copyright matters in
22 the case but that he was not going to waive the attorney/client
23 privilege. He took that position both in his deposition as a
24 representative of Michael and --
25 THE COURT: He received and relied upon
00028 {12:15:00pm}
01 attorney/client -- or attorney's advice?
02 MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor. Those pages were
03 attached to the motion.
04 THE COURT: And would not specify what that advice
05 was or who it was from?
06 MR. HILL: Exactly. Exactly. Now, he did testify as
07 to certain, you know, bases that he had for not liking the
08 Maaherra decision, for disagreeing with portions of the
09 Maaherra decision. I think he said that he -- he said, you
10 know, "How could you have a copyright just because questions
11 were asked," sort of things. And that's fine. Those were
12 disclosed in discovery. But when you get to him coming out and
13 dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's for the jury by
14 drawing a legal conclusion as to what the implications of
15 certain facts are and things like that, those can't come in
16 because -- those are conclusions that for someone who has
17 testified in his deposition that he's --
18 THE COURT: You're trying to exclude the live
19 testimony of a party to this lawsuit or basically a party to
20 this lawsuit; right?
21 MR. HILL: Portions.
22 THE COURT: To say that he can't testify as to what
23 reasoning he had for taking certain positions, even if that
24 includes his analysis and conclusions with regard to the law?
25 MR. HILL: Yes. The law is pretty well established
00029 {12:15:01pm}
01 in willful infringement cases, Your Honor, that if you rely on
02 an opinion of counsel but you're not willing to disclose the
03 opinion during discovery, you can't then -- you can't then
04 testify as to all of the things that you learned about
05 copyright or patent or trademark law, and that's exactly what
06 he would be doing.
07 THE COURT: And what would he be saying? Give me
08 some examples of what he'd be saying that you want me to order
09 and exclude him or prevent him from saying right now.
10 MR. HILL: Right. I'll give you one example that
11 came up in the deposition, for example, is that he claims
12 copyright on Jesus - A New Revelation. I asked him what the
13 purpose for that was and he said, "My lawyers told me to do
14 it." Other than that, he could not give a response.
15 THE COURT: What do you mean? What did you ask him
16 other than that?
17 MR. HILL: I think what he said was, "I don't know.
18 My lawyers told me to do it," in response to my question of,
19 "Why do you claim copyright on this?" I don't now want to hear
20 him testify on direct to the effect of, you know, the
21 intricacies of why he claimed copyright.
22 THE COURT: This is on deposition that he told you
23 this?
24 MR. HILL: Yes.
25 THE COURT: And he's now saying -- in other words,
00030 {12:15:03pm}
01 you would have his inconsistent statement, wouldn't you, that
02 he said, "I can't remember what it was; he just told me that,"
03 but you don't want him now to come in and say, "A, B, C and D
04 was told me by attorney"; is that correct?
05 MR. HILL: That's right, because --
06 THE COURT: Why couldn't you rely on his previous
07 inconsistent statement?
08 MR. HILL: I could, Your Honor, but he would be --
09 but what he would be doing is he would be telling the jury
10 things that he has learned through conversations with his
11 counsel that he was unwilling to disclose during discovery. My
12 understanding of the sword/shield rule regarding waiver of
13 attorney/client privilege is that that's impermissible.
14 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, this is one of the more
15 dangerous ones that they filed because it is extremely vague.
16 I mean, it just says, "We don't want Mr. McMullan testifying
17 about opinions that he has formed becaused upon his
18 conversations with lawyers." You know, I mean, it really is a
19 difficult --
20 THE COURT: Counselor, I don't think there's any way
21 I can do that. Now, you'll be given an opportunity to cross-
22 examine, and you'll be given an opportunity to show his
23 previous inconsistent statements, but I don't think there's any
24 way this Court could advance -- in advance of trial, issue any
25 kind of a ruling that would prohibit him from attempting to do
00031 {12:15:05pm}
01 that that wouldn't might not unduly hamper his ability to do
02 it. I just don't think it's a proper motion for -- a proper
03 motion in limine. It's just not a pretrial ruling. You may
04 object at the time he starts to testify, and if there's some
05 basis about determining -- I'm still not sure I can prevent him
06 from so testifying but certainly it would be premature to do it
07 at this time in a preliminary motion. So I'm going to deny
08 that motion in limine and we'll just see how it plays out in
09 court.
10 Motion to exclude testimony that the scope of copyright
11 does not extend to papers consecutively.
12 MR. HILL: We're withdrawing that.
13 THE COURT: Withdraw? Okay.
14 MR. HILL: Yeah, we'll withdraw that, in light of the
15 Court's summary judgment ruling.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Motion to exclude Michael
17 Foundation exhibit 145. Tell me about that now.
18 MR. HILL: Judge, that's a letter that we showed the
19 Court from Thomas Kendall written when he was either the vice
20 president or president of Urantia Foundation. Mr. Kendall is
21 not testifying. What the letter says, what the letter goes on
22 to talk about, is --
23 THE COURT: Who's the letter to?
24 MR. HILL: Oh, it was a standard type of reader --
25 THE COURT: Advisory letter? Okay.
00032 {12:15:08pm}
01 MR. HILL: -- correspondence to somebody who had
02 probably written a letter to Urantia Foundation.
03 THE COURT: Okay. Okay.
04 MR. HILL: It's maintained in our reader
05 correspondence files in Chicago.
06 But the objection is that the contents of the letter are
07 Mr. Kendall talking about the book being a divine revelation,
08 talking about the book being exactly as the revelators wanted
09 us to have it, or words to that effect, and it creates the
10 impression -- it creates the impression that it's factual in
11 nature when, in reality, it's clearly based upon nothing more
12 than his spiritual beliefs. And he has -- I don't think
13 anybody believes he has any personal knowledge one way or
14 another as to what happened regarding the formation of this
15 book. They certainly haven't deposed him, and he's not on
16 anybody's witness list.
17 My understanding of the intersection of Rule 602 and the
18 hearsay rule is that if you're going to take an out-of-court
19 statement and attempt to tie it to a party as an admission of a
20 party opponent, then you still have to be able to meet -- lay
21 the foundation that the declarant who you're saying represents
22 the party had personal knowledge to make the statements that
23 are contained in the letter, and that's the threshold that I
24 don't think they can meet because Mr. Kendall is not here to
25 testify.
00033 {12:15:10pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, this wasn't just met --
02 this wasn't just sent by Thomas Kendall. This was sent by
03 Thomas Kendall, president of Urantia Foundation on behalf of
04 Urantia Foundation.
05 One of the assertions that they make is that the -- and
06 one of the things that we're going to be trying tomorrow is
07 whether the patient was a mere conduit for, you know,
08 revelations by spiritual beings or whether he should be treated
09 as the author. I'm kind of wondering how they proved he's a
10 mere conduit. I mean, if there's no testimony by the patient,
11 we don't even know -- they don't even disclose who the patient
12 was. And they haven't listed any spiritual beings as
13 witnesses, so I don't suspect that there's anybody with
14 personal knowledge about whether or not this was a pure
15 revelation or whether it was written by the patient is going to
16 be able to testify. There isn't anybody with personal
17 knowledge about that.
18 So, it's apparent that they intend to prove, you know,
19 that it's a revelation and that the patient was just a conduit
20 through documents like the history of the Urantia movement that
21 they contend was written by Dr. Sadler who didn't have personal
22 knowledge of whether or not it was actually written by
23 spiritual beings. I mean, who is going to have knowledge of
24 spiritual beings writing something like that. There's just no
25 way to tell whether the patient placed the words on the
00034 {12:15:12pm}
01 paper -- placed his own words on the paper or whether they were
02 words given to him by spiritual beings.
03 So, they want to pick and choose which of their
04 representatives without personal knowledge they're going to
05 have, in effect, testify, either in person or through
06 documents, as to how these words came to be placed on paper.
07 Thomas Kendall was the president of the organization when
08 he wrote it. He wrote it on behalf of Urantia Foundation.
09 It's a statement by Urantia Foundation. It contains things
10 that are clearly relevant to that issue of whether or not --
11 THE COURT: The patient was the author?
12 MR. PLOURDE: -- whether or not the patient was the
13 author. And, you know, I think it's clearly relevant and
14 admissible for that purpose and I don't think it's hearsay
15 because it's a statement of a party. And 801(d)(2) says a
16 statement offered against a party, that is, the party's own
17 statement, is not hearsay.
18 THE COURT: I'm strongly inclined to agree with you.
19 Do you all want to offer any kind of rebuttal or
20 response?
21 As I say, I'm inclined to decline the motion in limine.
22 You can object to it at the time of trial, of course.
23 MR. HILL: That's fine.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Motion in limine is denied with
25 regard to that -- to those -- to 145.
00035 {12:15:13pm}
01 Okay. Inflammatory statements regarding prior
02 litigation. Who wants --
03 MR. HILL: Oh, yes. Your Honor recognized in the
04 order last week that came down granting and denying in part the
05 summary judgment motions that although there is evidence that
06 can clearly come in to show the jury that Urantia Foundation
07 took the position in the Burton litigation or at least did not
08 deny Mr. Burton's position in the litigation that the conduit
09 had written the final versions of all 196 papers, or at least
10 that they were in his handwriting, the Court also recognized
11 that Urantia Foundation did not take the position that the
12 conduit was the legal author of those papers in that case.
13 And our motion is simply -- is not directed to proscribe them
14 from bringing in evidence of what Urantia Foundation did or did
15 not do provided that they could meet the rules for previous --
16 in its previous litigation, but I am concerned in opening
17 statements and we'll see where it goes from there about telling
18 the jury that Urantia Foundation has contradicted itself by
19 taking the position in Burton that the conduit is the author
20 and then taking the position in Maaherra that the patient was
21 not the author. And that is -- that's what I'm directing this
22 motion to.
23 THE COURT: I have some difficulty understanding
24 precisely what you're going to -- you want this Court to order
25 them to do, but let me hear from you. It doesn't sound like
00036 {12:15:16pm}
01 you're specific enough, and then underlying that it doesn't
02 sound to me like you should be prevented from pointing out what
03 you perceive and arguing to be inconsistent positions.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: That's the issue --
05 THE COURT: Everybody is nodding so I assume you
06 agree with the Court's postion.
07 MR. HILL: I thought we had a fighting chance reading
08 your summary judgment order, Judge, but I see --
09 THE COURT: Now, do you unwisely wish to make any
10 additional argument?
11 All right. The Court will deny the motion in limine with
12 regard to statements regarding prior litigation. That's not to
13 authorize or endorse you to make some inappropriate remarks
14 with regard to that but only what you can in good faith contend
15 is an inconsistent position to this with all the inflammatory
16 language you can muster in support of it.
17 All right. I'm being facetious now.
18 I'll just deny the motion in limine with regard to the
19 inflammatory statements motion.
20 All right. Motion to exclude 42, 75, 79, 81 and 85. Who
21 wants to argue that or those?
22 MR. PLOURDE: Those are Benitez; is that right?
23 MR. HILL: Yeah.
24 THE COURT: You withdrew some of those, didn't you?
25 MR. HILL: Yeah.
00037 {12:15:18pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: We've withdrawn them, Judge.
02 THE COURT: Okay.
03 MR. HILL: Did you withdraw all of those?
04 MR. PLOURDE: 42, 75, 79, 81 and 89, yes.
05 MR. HILL: 42, 75, 79, 81 and 89 is what I show.
06 MR. PLOURDE: That's right. We may need to use them
07 on cross-examination or direct to the extent that they reflect
08 generic use, but as far as listing them as exhibits, we
09 withdraw them.
10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, we would request the
11 same sort of sidebar authentication.
12 THE COURT: Do you have any problem with that, Ross?
13 MR. PLOURDE: No.
14 THE COURT: Okay. That will be the ruling then, that
15 the motion in limine is denied based on the withdrawal of those
16 exhibits but with the plaintiff's right to offer the exhibits
17 at sidebar conference without reference to the jury until such
18 time as they have been admitted. All right?
19 Motion to exclude portions of the deposition of Bernard
20 Dietz. And that's been withdrawn, hasn't it?
21 MR. PLOURDE: Yes.
22 THE COURT: That's moot.
23 Motion to maintain confidential designation of certain
24 documents.
25 MR. HILL: Oh, goodness.
00038 {12:15:20pm}
01 THE COURT: Your motion.
02 MR. HILL: Only because of the way the protective
03 order reads in this case, Judge.
04 I think, you know, reading their response, this is like
05 two ships passing in the night. The protective order you
06 entered, Judge, says that confidential or attorneys-eyes-only
07 documents may be used at trial pursuant to further direction
08 from the Court.
09 The Maaherra protective order, when we facilitated the
10 transfer of certain documents from Maaherra counsel to the
11 other side, we indicated in the protective order that nothing
12 in that protective order would preclude them from using the
13 exhibits at trial, but that was, at least my understanding, was
14 that that would be pursuant to further direction from the Court
15 and that those documents would not lose their confidential or
16 attorneys-eyes-only designation pursuant to Judge Urbom's
17 order, and I don't think anybody's understanding was really to
18 the contrary of that.
19 We put in -- there are two issues here. There is the
20 document-by-document issue. There is also the concern over
21 removing the confidential and attorneys-eyes-only designation
22 on a massive amount of Urantia Foundation's historical files
23 and thereby -- and the implication being that Mr. McMullan
24 would thereby have rights to disseminate those or put those
25 into the public domain.
00039 {12:15:21pm}
01 I litigate trade secrets cases in Georgia and other
02 states, Your Honor, and we frequently have issues regarding how
03 to use confidential exhibits in jury trials. And there are any
04 number of ways to approach this problem. The easiest being
05 that when a confiden- -- that if and when a confidential
06 exhibit comes in, the Court can simply -- can -- or the party
07 who's seeking protection of the confidentiality of the
08 attorneys-eyes-only document can bring it to the Court's
09 attention and the Court can review the document at that time
10 and decide whether or not any measures need to be taken in
11 order to permit that document to be shown to the jury or
12 brought into evidence, or -- and that's not even the main
13 problem. The main problem is when you have a witness who wants
14 to testify about the contents of a protective document and at
15 that point in time we can take it up on a case-by-case basis
16 rather than trying to make a sweeping ruling.
17 THE COURT: Well, that concerns me from a time
18 standpoint. I don't want to get into 100 different arguments
19 and lawsuits about a pro forma order. I'm going to be real
20 frank with you. I sign confidential orders presented by
21 agreement of the parties frequently. Now, if either party
22 wants to withdraw that confidentiality, if they can give me
23 some reason for doing so, I'm inclined since they agreed to it
24 in the beginning, and I won't sign them hardly -- I have to
25 have a dad-gum good reason to sign them over objection of the
00040 {12:15:23pm}
01 parties.
02 This was a confidentiality order signed by agreement -- I
03 mean presented by agreement of the parties. Now, what -- I
04 want to see what you want to withdraw the confidentiality on
05 and for what purpose and what reasons the confidentiality, if
06 any, would hurt either of the parties.
07 As a general rule, rather than try to deal with it --
08 hell, this damn lawsuit threatens to go longer than I want to
09 go with it as it is, let alone having 50 issues a day on
10 whether or not this document ought to be unsealed.
11 Now, tell me generally what you don't want them to unseal
12 and then I'll ask them why they want to do that and whether I
13 should do that or not. Just tell me generally. You don't want
14 them to unseal any of it, do you, or to admit any of it; right?
15 MR. HILL: We didn't have -- we didn't have
16 objections to some, and I think those we can set aside.
17 They're asking --
18 THE COURT: Certainly you all can sit down and agree
19 to those that you don't have objections to?
20 MR. HILL: Right. We've already agreed that --
21 THE COURT: Okay. Now, tell me the ones that you're
22 objecting to here.
23 MR. HILL: We are opposed -- We are opposed to the
24 correspondence with -- the private correspondence that Urantia
25 Foundation has had with its readers/customers over the years
00041 {12:15:25pm}
01 because, in toto, releasing those documents provides a very
02 valuable service to someone who is marketing a book that is in
03 competition with The Urantia Book.
04 THE COURT: Explain that to me.
05 MR. HILL: Because the identities of all of the
06 persons who have purchased The Urantia Book are included in
07 these files.
08 THE COURT: In other words, you just want them to
09 have a buyers list then; is that correct?
10 MR. HILL: Well, they have a de facto buyers list in
11 their possession right now if they wanted to combine -- if they
12 want to go to the trouble of taking the information off.
13 THE COURT: You all then agree that this was
14 confidential to begin with?
15 MR. PLOURDE: No, Your Honor. Let me clear that up.
16 We agreed to the entry of the confidentiality order. The
17 confidentiality order says that they can just designate
18 anything they want to as -- provided in their opinion it falls
19 within certain guidelines. They can designate whatever they
20 want to as confidential. So we don't participate in the
21 designation of it as confidential. And then our remedy is to
22 say, "We don't think that's confidential," and they have to
23 come to you to get it determined to be confidential.
24 Now, within that framework, what they're talking about
25 here are -- what they believe is confidential are the names of
00042 {12:15:27pm}
01 the people that they sent letters to, and we don't particularly
02 care to use the names. We'll be happy to, you know, obliterate
03 the name from the exhibit. It's the person who sent it that's
04 important to us and what they're saying in the letter as
05 opposed to the person to whom they sent it. So, if that's all
06 they're concerned about, we'll be happy to take a black -- they
07 did it in most cases anyway -- take a black magic marker and
08 mark through the name and address of the person to whom it was
09 sent.
10 THE COURT: Would that moot the problem? Are you
11 concerned about the statements being made as being used against
12 your interests and so forth? Is that what your main concern
13 is, as opposed to some business reason for confidentiality?
14 MR. HILL: No. Our main concern, Judge, to be frank,
15 is that if the confidentiality is listed -- is lifted off of
16 these documents, that we're going to see them en masse on the
17 Internet tomorrow, the whole history of everything that Urantia
18 Foundation has ever said or done in its course of business.
19 They agreed that --
20 THE COURT: I may have misunderstood the mechanics of
21 this, but you're agreeing that the names of the people
22 receiving this can remain confidential --
23 MR. PLOURDE: Sure.
24 THE COURT: -- but you want the information that was
25 sent out to no longer be treated as confidential?
00043 {12:15:28pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: That's right, Judge. The letters
02 saying, you know, stuff like, "No human being authored The
03 Urantia Book." Well, you know, I've got them here, Judge. We
04 asked to file them under seal because until you rule that
05 they're not confidential, we've got to do that. I haven't
06 gotten an order back authorizing --
07 THE COURT: Well, can we unseal them in every respect
08 except the recepient's -- the name and address of the
09 recipient?
10 MR. HILL: Judge, do you have the motion that we
11 filed, or the declaration?
12 MR. PLOURDE: I had my legal assistant bring it over.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, one of the reasons
14 they have been so protective is Maaherra, the plaintiff in that
15 case, Maaherra, chose to take all -- we gave her open discovery
16 to take with these documents and she posted them all on the
17 Internet. You know, these are -- a lot of these are old
18 documents.
19 THE COURT: I understand that. What I'm trying --
20 listen, I'm not an authority on the Internet but I'm attempting
21 to get an understanding or an agreement here that they won't or
22 can't do it, and if they do, if they do, with that is a concern
23 that if somebody else does it for you, you're liable to be in
24 trouble with the Court.
25 MR. PLOURDE: We're talking about the names? The
00044 {12:15:30pm}
01 names of the people?
02 THE COURT: Let me understand that. Yeah, the names.
03 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah, that isn't going to help.
04 MR. HILL: Judge, there are a number, now that I have
05 the motion in front of me, there are a number of categories of
06 objections that we had to different exhibits and I've got them
07 broken down, and this will make it a lot easier.
08 There is also the -- in terms of the -- what we're mainly
09 talking about here are the client correspondence largely
10 protected under the terms of the Maaherra protective order. We
11 think that the contents -- We think that the contents of the
12 documents are related to our business. We think that that's
13 consistent with the provision that we agreed to at the
14 beginning that said that proprietary and business contents
15 would be able to be designated as confidential with more
16 financial information being confidential attorneys-eyes-only.
17 When I agreed to permit or facilitate the exchange of
18 documents from Mr. Lewis, Ms. Maaherra's attorney, to
19 Mr. Plourde, those documents are protected under an entirely
20 different agreement and by an entirely different order. Judge
21 Urbom's order was different. It was negotiated differently. I
22 certainly believe that it was broader and I think that we can
23 agree on that based on how difficult it was to negotiate the
24 protective order.
25 THE COURT: Well, I understood there was some
00045 {12:15:32pm}
01 argument as to whether or not this would be undermining Judge
02 Urbom's orders.
03 MR. HILL: Yeah, we're not saying the documents can't
04 be used, Your Honor, and certainly we appreciated the
05 willingness to redact, but the story remains the same on our
06 side, which is that the contents of these documents -- you take
07 like their exhibit 53, it's not just a letter, Judge. Exhibit
08 53 is 100 letters that say -- that contain the contents of
09 things that Urantia Foundation representatives have discreetly
10 said in private correspondence with either a reader or customer
11 of Urantia Foundation over a span of 50 years.
12 Essentially, what they're asking, Judge, is that in asking
13 you to lift -- essentially lift the Maaherra protective order
14 is let -- I mean, when this is all over, their client has a
15 complete set of our correspondence files and our reader
16 correspondence. And with or without the specific names, it
17 still tracks a history. And we will see on the Internet, I
18 assure you, a breakdown at some point of everything every
19 Urantia Foundation representative has said about one thing or
20 another and noting every single inconsistency that's ever been
21 out there. That's just the way this goes.
22 THE COURT: Well, --
23 MR. HILL: So, in terms of the reader correspondence,
24 we're --
25 MR. ABOWITZ: I hope that will be in the public
00046 {12:15:33pm}
01 record of this case, Judge.
02 THE COURT: Let me hear a response from --
03 MR. HILL: That's the nature of organizations.
04 THE COURT: Nothing he says scares me all that much.
05 I'll be real frank. Maybe I'm not as concerned as I should be
06 about confidentiality and about the adverse impact of
07 correspondence that was completely within your control. In
08 other words, there may be some admissions or relevant state-
09 ments therein that bears on this case, and I can understand why
10 you might think it's detrimental to your business but it isn't
11 apparent to me, what it is.
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if this was Dowe
13 Chemical and Dowe Chemical was sending letters to their
14 purchasers or suppliers and they were done in the ordinary
15 source of business and they sent them all the time over a
16 period of years and Dowe Chemical was sitting here saying,
17 "Your Honor, these are confidential documents and we take steps
18 to protect them and we consider them integral to our business,"
19 would you look at this any differently?
20 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure I would. That's my
21 problem, that I may not be as respectful as what ought to be or
22 allowed to be protected as confidential.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, with respect to that argument --
24 THE COURT: And this is not Dowe Chemical, aside and
25 apart from that.
00047 {12:15:35pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: All the asbestos documents, all the
02 tobacco documents, all the fen-phen documents, all the Agent
03 Orange documents went through that same argument and they were
04 rejected universally.
05 MR. HILL: Well, could we agree, Judge, that the
06 documents could retain their designation for purposes outside
07 the presentation of the documents during the course of the jury
08 trial? Because that -- because I'll tell you my one concern is
09 there's an ulterior motive to this, that it's not just about
10 trying the case. That they agree to the protective order, they
11 agree that our business information can be designated
12 confidential, we get into a jury trial and they then ask the
13 Court to lift the confidentiality designations because they
14 need to use it in the litigation but in reality they have
15 ulterior motives in mind as well. And I think if we can agree
16 if they can bring it up, they can use it freely during the
17 course of the trial, but that otherwise those documents retain
18 their designation so that --
19 THE COURT: Let me put it this way: You all agreed
20 to the confidentiality agreement to begin with; right?
21 MR. PLOURDE: Sure, we did. And -- I'm sorry.
22 THE COURT: But now you come in and say, "We want it
23 lifted for purposes of this litigation."
24 MR. PLOURDE: We want it lifted for these documents.
25 THE COURT: For these documents. For the purpose of
00048 {12:15:37pm}
01 using some of them in the litigation. Why would you have any
02 objection to restricting any further use of them?
03 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, the only objection that I
04 have to that is that these documents are going to be offered as
05 evidence, they're going to be part of the public record,
06 they're going to be used -- if the case is appealed, they'll be
07 used on appeal. People can certainly go to the public record
08 and get it and I just don't want Mr. McMullan exposed to the
09 argument that, "You did it," when, you know --
10 THE COURT: Well, if I lift the confidentiality for
11 the purposes of this litigation and then it gets into the
12 public record as a part of the transcript or anything else,
13 there isn't any -- you can't possibly have any complaint to
14 that. I think we've got --
15 MR. HILL: That's true. We can always come back and
16 file a motion to seal if there's anything from an exhibit
17 standpoint that wasn't --
18 THE COURT: I think that we've got a basis for an
19 accommodation here. I'm not too protective of their concerns,
20 and I think you can detect that. But, by the same token, in
21 view of the fact that we have a confidentiality order and I'm
22 going to lift it to some degree, if we can get an accommodation
23 in that regard, I don't mind imposing some restriction.
24 Now, I think it's just this, that my order will say the
25 confidential designation is lifted insofar as this litigation
00049 {12:15:40pm}
01 is concerned but that it is not lifted for any other purposes.
02 MR. HILL: Your Honor, can I make some arguments
03 regarding some specific documents that are more sensitive than
04 just the reader correspondence?
05 THE COURT: Okay. Let's hear them.
06 MR. HILL: Because, you know, we have identified the
07 reader correspondence but I want to talk about some specific
08 intra-Foundation memos and some specific Foundation business
09 dealings that --
10 THE COURT: Let me get a framework. You're saying
11 some of these documents should remain confidential even for
12 purposes of using them in this litigation; is that what you're
13 saying?
14 MR. HILL: Yes.
15 THE COURT: All right. Make your case, because
16 you've got an uphill climb, counselor.
17 MR. HILL: I appreciate your candor, Judge.
18 There is -- exhibit 7 is an e-mail between two trustees
19 who are --
20 THE COURT: Could I have a copy?
21 MR. HILL: It might be helpful if I just showed you
22 that.
23 THE COURT: Go ahead.
24 MR. HILL: This is a detailed e-mail between two
25 disagreeing trustees who are infighting with one another over
00050 {12:15:41pm}
01 one matter or another, or probably more likely has something to
02 do with a philosophical outlook on life. It's expressed
03 between two trustees and possibly CC'd to others on the board.
04 There's no reason to put political information into the
05 public record even for the purposes of this trial. And I would
06 suggest that in the event that they do want to use that, we
07 ought to take exhibit 7 up at that time and look at the
08 confidentiality.
09 THE COURT: What's the relevance of 7 and what is
10 your purpose for asking that the confidentiality be removed and
11 your using of it, if any?
12 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, I don't think -- I don't
13 mean to be disrespectful, and I guess I'm explaining why I'm
14 not going to be very capable of going into, in detail, the
15 relevance at this point. It hasn't been put at issue at this
16 point. You know, generally, based on what Mr. Hill is --
17 Murray is going to help me with the reference --
18 MR. HILL: I disagree with that, Judge. It's in
19 section 8 of the declaration of Mindy Williams that we filed
20 along with this that specifically outlines this as an e-mail
21 between two disagreeing trustees that falls within category 1
22 protection, which is intra-Foundation business communications,
23 under the protective order.
24 MR. PLOURDE: I understood that the issue presented
25 by their motion in limine on confidentiality was the
00051 {12:15:44pm}
01 confidentiality of it as opposed to the relevance of it.
02 That's what I was trying to be prepared to address.
03 Judge, you know, I don't think there's anything in there.
04 I mean, the fact that they are disagreeing about how you
05 approach this, I think, is, in and of itself, irrelevant. As
06 far as whether that kind of a disagreement is confidential, I
07 mean, that's exactly the kind of stuff that you want to be able
08 to present at trial.
09 MR. HILL: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. They're not
10 disagreeing over anything about this lawsuit. They're just
11 disagreeing about the running of the business of Urantia
12 Foundation. If this was a memo between two board of
13 directors (sic) --
14 THE COURT: What you're arguing now then is an
15 objection to the relevancy of this?
16 MR. HILL: Well, I'm saying, I mean, we ought to look
17 at this on a little bit of a sliding scale given the protective
18 order's provisions are specifically cover matters pertaining to
19 business which is not generally known and which the designating
20 party would not voluntarily reveal the third party. Somebody
21 would have to give us a subpoena to get that, and they would
22 only get it under a protective order at that. So, given that
23 that's the standard, I mean, why do they need to use it? The
24 reason why they're saying that they ought to be exempt from the
25 agreement that they made from us is that they want to use it at
00052 {12:15:46pm}
01 trial. So I think for the more sensitive information that we
02 don't want leaking out, we ought to be entitled to an
03 explanation of exactly how they are going to use it before the
04 Court enters an order that just slap, you know, removes --
05 pulls the sticker of confidential off the document.
06 THE COURT: Murray?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: It addresses The Urantia Book which is
08 an issue here. It also addresses the publication of this book
09 in parts, which is also a critical issue in this case, whether
10 it is a work that is unitary in nature or it can be separated,
11 and we think that's relevant.
12 Insofar as the protective order is concerned, if they want
13 a protective order, they can have it, but we ought to be
14 allowed to show it to the jury at the appropriate time.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Here's my ruling: I'm going to
16 deny the motion to maintain confidential designation of the
17 documents that they've listed here but with the caveat that the
18 names and addresses of the recipients will be redacted or in
19 some way protected from public use, and you all can work on the
20 details of that.
21 MR. HILL: Can we also get the understanding that it
22 can't be used for purposes other than this litigation by their
23 clients?
24 THE COURT: Do you have any problem with that?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, it's the same problem that
00053 {12:15:48pm}
01 Mr. Plourde disclosed to the Court earlier. We have no control
02 over it. We don't want the ire coming back to us that we did
03 it when it's in some public realm that somebody can get hold of
04 it and do it.
05 MR. HILL: Well, Judge, with all due respect, I mean,
06 I'm going to be at the trial and I'm going to see what actually
07 comes into the public record and what doesn't and we can always
08 come in after the trial and file a motion to seal any exhibits
09 that are -- that are introduced.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Then that's the way to handle it,
11 Judge.
12 MR. HILL: Well, I agree with that, but in the
13 interim, motions to seal take time and have to be ruled upon.
14 In the interim, you distribute a copy of everything that's in
15 the public domain for a brief window of time and then, you
16 know, --
17 THE COURT: All right. Now, I don't know how to
18 limit from interim use and so forth. Can that be done
19 effectively?
20 MR. HILL: Judge, I think it ought to be that they
21 can use it for the -- I think the order ought to be that they
22 can use it for the purposes of the trial only and that
23 otherwise you're not impacting either Judge Urbom's ruling in
24 the Maaherra case or the confidential designation that's placed
25 on the --
00054 {12:15:50pm}
01 THE COURT: Is that growing out of the fact that it's
02 now confidential by an agreed judgment, order to that effect,
03 or what?
04 MR. HILL: Well, respecting Judge Urbom's order which
05 remains in effect is a part of it, Judge. And the other part
06 of it is the prevention of any ulterior motive. We don't know
07 and I suspect, when push comes to shove, that they are not
08 going to use every one of these. I mean, this is 1,000-plus
09 pages of document. I pray they're not going to use them all.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: We're not.
11 MR. HILL: Yeah. And so what this order
12 accomplishes, Judge, is that those things that are really
13 essential to their case that they really do need to use, they
14 get in. But, otherwise, there's no reason to lift these
15 designations and thereby create a Pandora's Box issue for The
16 Foundation.
17 THE COURT: All right. Let me express my general
18 skepticism down through the ages about confidentiality
19 provisions and settlement conferences and everything else. It
20 has been my experience that they're almost impossible to
21 enforce. It just doesn't happen. I don't mind attempting to
22 restrict this and ordering the attorneys not to use them or
23 release them for any purposes other than their use in this
24 litigation but, in all fairness, I don't know what kind of a
25 sanction or a problem that I could ever use to enforce it in
00055 {12:15:52pm}
01 the event that they do get out in the interim.
02 Now, --
03 MR. HILL: Well, if we see all our documents on an
04 organizational web site in two weeks that's related to
05 Mr. McMullan, I will concede that we might be on stronger
06 footing than if --
07 THE COURT: I can't think of anything I would enjoy
08 more than the possibility of sentencing both Ross and Murray to
09 some sort of severe sanction but I --
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Could we get good behavior?
11 THE COURT: I'm being facetious here.
12 I really don't know how to handle this. Quite frankly,
13 I'm inclined to just lift the confidentiality for the purposes
14 of this trial with the agreement of counsel that they'll redact
15 the attorneys -- I mean the addressees and addresses and so
16 forth and let it go at that. And then you can move for
17 reimposition of anything, and it may be after the horse is out,
18 but -- now, do you have any suggestion how you can even
19 partially or the Court can partially accommodate him on this?
20 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, you know, we certainly -- I
21 think --
22 MR. ABOWITZ: I can tell the Court, as an officer of
23 the court, that I will use my best efforts to restrict the
24 document. I want to use it for the purposes of the trial, if
25 it's used. I have no desire or intention to hold a press
00056 {12:15:53pm}
01 conference out here with these documents.
02 THE COURT: Well, of course, there's some ill feeling
03 and some litigation history here between your clients and them
04 but I don't know how we can restrict them from using them.
05 MR. HILL: Well, Judge, can I -- let me bring one
06 more. They have, among other things, Urantia Foundation's
07 internal files regarding an author that we've brought to the
08 Court's attention, a J. J. Benitez. In those files, it
09 contains some analysis and some internal memoranda between
10 employees of Urantia Foundation regarding things like whether
11 they view this as copyright infringing or things like -- or
12 things like that.
13 Can we at least go through some of these sensitive things
14 -- there's maybe just a handful -- and see whether or not they
15 really -- I mean, they've backed down on the Benitez exhibits
16 that they had and I don't see what -- you know, what the point
17 is in doing a blanket lifting of this protective order. I
18 mean, in some sense, for them to file this -- or force me to
19 file this right before trial, I don't get the opportunity to do
20 a detailed breakdown for the Court of all the exhibits.
21 THE COURT: Benitez wrote a couple of books, didn't
22 he?
23 MR. HILL: Right, a handful of books. And we have a
24 file on him.
25 THE COURT: You have a file on him?
00057 {12:15:55pm}
01 MR. HILL: It's exhibit 42.
02 THE COURT: He was kind of a little bit in the same
03 position that your client is in; is that right?
04 MR. PLOURDE: If I could suggest this, Judge. If we
05 don't use it at trial, we'll keep it confidential. You know,
06 if it's not offered and admitted at trial, we'll continue to
07 maintain their confidentiality. That would cover Benitez.
08 THE COURT: All right. I think the way I want to do
09 it is have that understanding and when we get to a particular
10 document that they intend to offer, I'll give you an
11 opportunity to object to the lifting of the confidentiality
12 with regard to that one.
13 How many are you going to offer? Do you have any idea? I
14 may get into a ton of these things.
15 MR. PLOURDE: We've pared it down quite a bit.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: We've pared down substantially.
17 THE COURT: That would be in your case in chief,
18 wouldn't it?
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
20 MR. PLOURDE: There are a couple that Steve
21 graciously pointed out that --
22 THE COURT: All right. I'm not going to maintain the
23 confidentiality of any document that they want to use for them
24 to offer.
25 Now then, what about the -- will you agree not to refer to
00058 {12:15:57pm}
01 them in opening statement and all that sort of thing until the
02 Court has admitted them and so forth? That would give you the
03 right to use it in closing argument but not in the opening
04 statement.
05 MR. HILL: Let me make a proposal that I hope will be
06 acceptable because I think when push comes to shove, you're far
07 more interested in the reader correspondence.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: I like some of this other stuff. I
09 think a jury will too.
10 MR. HILL: All right. Then my suggestion --
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Let me hear the suggestion.
12 MR. HILL: What I was going to suggest was that we
13 wouldn't have any objection to the characterization of things
14 that have been said in letters or correspondence between
15 Urantia Foundation and third parties.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: That's fair.
17 THE COURT: That's probably a pretty good idea, that
18 we intend to offer evidence rather than to specify exactly
19 because you haven't got that evidence admitted yet, but just to
20 say, "We hope and expect to offer testimony or evidence, such
21 and such," rather than going into great detail.
22 Okay. Are we pretty well set now? Even on the ones you
23 offer, it won't contain the names of the recipients and
24 addresses, and they can object to the lifting of
25 confidentiality on those particular ones.
00059 {12:15:58pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
02 THE COURT: And they'll not be characterized in
03 opening statements other than we've mentioned right here. Fair
04 enough?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
06 THE COURT: Well, maybe we have stumbled through
07 that.
08 All right. Michael Foundation's motions in limine.
09 Motion to bifurcate. I'm pretty inclined to not allow that.
10 I'll hear you briefly on it though but I probably won't pay too
11 much attention.
12 MR. PLOURDE: I'm sorry. Tell me again.
13 THE COURT: Motion to bifurcate.
14 MR. PLOURDE: Motion to bifurcate. That's Murray's.
15 THE COURT: Damages are not a big issue. They're
16 going to be hard to instruct on maybe and it might be simpler
17 for the jury -- and I am concerned about the complexity of this
18 case as far as the jury instructions and everything is
19 concerned. But the evidence with regard to damages is not
20 going to be very extensive, is it? What will it amount to?
21 MR. HILL: A couple hundred books, I think, have been
22 put out there before the -- before --
23 THE COURT: I mean, how much evidence, how much time
24 are we talking about?
25 MR. HILL: We're talking infinitesimally small. We
00060 {12:15:59pm}
01 have no damages witnesses, per se. You know, I mean,
02 Mr. McMullan will probably -- I would imagine that in his
03 direct he'll put in most of the evidence that we're going to
04 use to rely upon for our damages case.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: I thought they had a guy that was going
06 to come in here and say that we deprived them of billions of
07 dollars of sales in this book.
08 MR. HILL: If you're referring to Dr. Rushing, my
09 economist who is lecturing in Cairo right now, I think the
10 Court has pretty much already taken care of him.
11 THE COURT: What did we do to him?
12 MR. HILL: Well, I mean, he may come but he is not a
13 damages -- he's not a damages -- he's going to testify as to
14 the quantification of damages. Judge, I really anticipate that
15 when we get to the point where it's time to instruct the jury,
16 we're probably going to elect for statutory damages, which is
17 purely within the discretion of the Court.
18 THE COURT: Okay. I'll deny the motion to bifurcate
19 at this time. Of course, if we're going to bifurcate, we'll
20 have to do it before the trial starts. But there won't be much
21 argument in opening statements with regard to damages, will
22 there?
23 MR. HILL: We're also amenable, Judge -- I mean, in a
24 complex case like this, if the Court wants to -- I noticed in
25 reading the special interrogatories and verdict form and
00061 {12:16:02pm}
01 proposed instructions of the Court, we have no objection to
02 segmenting the instructions and asking the jury to deliberate
03 in phases.
04 THE COURT: We'll consider doing some things like
05 that as we go along. We don't have to decide that before the
06 trial starts.
07 But I'll just deny the motion to bifurcate at this time.
08 We'll start with that.
09 Okay. The next one is trial depositions taken in these
10 other cases. What's your position with regard to those? Not
11 the same lawsuit?
12 MR. PLOURDE: Not the same lawsuit.
13 THE COURT: Not res judicata, not collateral
14 estoppal, not anything, and you don't want them read?
15 MR. PLOURDE: Right.
16 THE COURT: Just a separate lawsuit and so forth?
17 MR. PLOURDE: That's right.
18 THE COURT: And your argument is?
19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Our argument is a little more
20 complicated than that. We look at the rules.
21 THE COURT: That's a dangerous thing to do.
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We're withdrawing the Schrader
23 deposition, so this is only going to be on Helen Carlson.
24 Helen Carlson, just to give you a flavor of her testimony,
25 was a Forum member. She died after giving a deposition in
00062 {12:16:04pm}
01 Maaherra. I believe it was in '94 she gave the deposition.
02 They state -- I mean, basically this falls under 804, former
03 testimony. Now, for 804, former testimony, you have to have
04 three things. You have to have that the witness is
05 unavailable. Well, Helen Carlson is deceased. The deposition
06 has to be in compliance with the law. I don't think there's
07 any problem that the deposition was in compliance with the
08 law. It comes down to one issue, and that is the third factor
09 of 804, which is it has to be a predecessor in interest, having
10 opportunity and similar motive to develop testimony. But the
11 case law is clear; predecessor in interest is not a privity
12 issue. It is someone who had -- they collapsed the two.
13 There's cases in the Sixth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit that
14 have basically -- and they're the leading cases -- the Tenth
15 Circuit cites those cases for the proposition that the two
16 factors, predecessor in interest and similar motive and
17 opportunity to develop testimony are collapsed into similar
18 motive and opportunity to develop testimony. It's not
19 identical motive but a similar motive.
20 Now, to say that in Maaherra, where she was seeking to
21 have the copyright invalidated and this case where they're
22 seeking to have the copyright invalidated, if there's not a
23 similar motive to cross-examine then I don't know what is.
24 They argue that they're diametric- -- that their positions are
25 diametrically opposite of Maaherra. Well, that's not true.
00063 {12:16:06pm}
01 Maaherra argued that the conduit was the author during the
02 trial. She also -- now, there's another position: the common
03 law assignment. They are saying there was no common law
04 assignment. Maaherra said there was no common law assignment.
05 I mean, how similar do we have to get?
06 MR. HILL: Judge, I was involved in the Maaherra case
07 and I will tell you that Mr. Lewis played every angle in the
08 discovery phase and we did not know what position Ms. Maaherra
09 was taking on specifically why the renewal copyright was
10 invalid until we saw his summary judgment motion. If the Court
11 reviews Judge Urbom's order granting that motion below, the
12 Court will see that Judge Urbom was looking very closely at the
13 evidence that Mr. Lewis surmised about the conduit and his role
14 in this process in denying both the composite work and the
15 work-for-hire theories in that case.
16 I think in the Helen Carlson deposition, Mr. Lewis's
17 questions were about twice as long and exhausting as the
18 questions that she was asked from Urantia Foundation which
19 primarily had to do with the custody of the papers on the
20 premises of Dr. Sadler's residence and offices and the role of
21 the questions.
22 We would be significantly prejudiced, I believe, if we're
23 not able to read the deposition to the jury.
24 THE COURT: Let me ask y'all. Is your main objection
25 that it was in a different lawsuit as opposed to her being
00064 {12:16:08pm}
01 unavailable? I mean, if she had given the deposition,
02 identical deposition in this case, and then died, you wouldn't
03 have any problem with her deposition being used?
04 MR. PLOURDE: No.
05 THE COURT: All right. Why not in that other case
06 then?
07 MR. PLOURDE: Well, Judge, they say it's the same
08 case. It really isn't. I mean, as the Court has noted, what
09 was placed at issue there was -- and I don't know what Mr. Hill
10 thinks Mr. Lewis was thinking but I think it's pretty clear
11 from Mr. Lewis's perspective that Kristen Maaherra was not
12 going to let Mr. Lewis argue that the patient was the author.
13 She firmly believed that these were spiritual revelations
14 written by spiritual beings and that was the entire thrust of
15 her case. That's exactly the opposite. I mean, that's what
16 they're arguing here, is that the spiritual beings were the
17 authors of this and they helped compile that but the author --
18 but the patient had nothing to do with that.
19 To stick us with the deposition that was defended by a
20 lawyer who was trying a different case from what we're trying,
21 not just a different litigation but trying a different case
22 from the case that we're trying, I think it's just unfair and I
23 don't think it's permitted under the law.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if what Mr. Plourde is
25 saying is true, it ought to help their case. If Mr. Lewis was
00065 {12:16:10pm}
01 arguing that -- I mean, if we were arguing it was the author,
02 they ought to be able to use our direct.
03 THE COURT: I reviewed some of her deposition
04 testimony. How much are we talking about?
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 48 pages.
06 MR. HILL: 10 minutes.
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Oh, yeah.
08 THE COURT: Are you going to read all of it --
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No.
10 THE COURT: -- or just portions of it?
11 Have you designated portions of it?
12 MR. HILL: We need to take that up today, Your Honor.
13 Neither side has designated.
14 THE COURT: I'll tell you what I'm going to do, I'm
15 going to take this under consideration, keep it under
16 consideration. It will be -- Will it be in your --
17 MR. HILL: Case in chief?
18 THE COURT: It wouldn't be in the case in chief to
19 begin with.
20 MR. HILL: Right.
21 THE COURT: I'm going to take this one, the
22 deposition matter, under consideration. You all designate or
23 attempt to designate what portions you're going to use and then
24 give me any additional authority that you haven't already
25 provided with regard to this that you want to, if you can,
00066 {12:16:11pm}
01 overnight, and then I'll take another look at it. Okay?
02 MR. HILL: Thanks, Judge.
03 THE COURT: All right. Now, we've got the expert
04 testimony, I believe. Now, there were two of those, wasn't
05 there, previous unrelated actions? Wasn't there two
06 depositions?
07 MR. HILL: We're not going to offer Schrader.
08 THE COURT: Okay. It's moot then.
09 MR. HILL: Yeah, at least for now. We don't
10 anticipate doing it.
11 THE COURT: The only one then that I've got under
12 consideration is the one --
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Helen Carlson.
14 THE COURT: What was her name? Kendall?
15 MR. HILL: Helen Carlson, right, the deposition.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Carlson, Helen Carlson. You all
17 designate, and if they look at that, they may or may not want
18 to object. If they do, I'll make a ruling on it.
19 MR. HILL: Your Honor, can we designate -- can we
20 agree -- do you all have any issue with agreeing to go ahead
21 and designate all portions of all depositions that you might
22 offer and that we might offer so that each side can have a
23 little bit of advance notice in case you want to take advantage
24 of the contents?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Sure, sure.
00067 {12:16:13pm}
01 THE COURT: Okay. Motion to exclude testimony from
02 expert witness Elizabeth Engstrom.
03 MR. HILL: Judge, Ms. Engstrom -- Mr. McMullan --
04 THE COURT: She is a literary analyst; is that
05 correct?
06 MR. PLOURDE: Well, she's an author.
07 THE COURT: I mean, that's the, quote, expert being
08 offered. What is a literary analyst?
09 MR. HILL: Somebody who analyzes writing style.
10 THE COURT: Somebody that can read writing?
11 Nobody mentioned Daubert or anything else but I really am
12 concerned about what my gatekeeping role is in this area and
13 why -- I'll be real frank with you, until Daubert and Khumo
14 came along, we were pretty liberal about letting almost anybody
15 who came in here and said they could read and write give their
16 opinions but obviously the gatekeeping role has risen somewhat
17 dramatically. I'm no expert on Daubert and Khumo but I do know
18 this, that you can't just let anybody come in here with a,
19 quote, junk scientist theory and say, "I believe, I believe, I
20 believe." It seems to me that someone -- You want her to
21 testify that she can tell whether one or five people or 10
22 people or 70 people contributed to a literary work; is that
23 correct?
24 MR. HILL: Well, that's what her opinions were. I
25 think what we're --
00068 {12:16:14pm}
01 THE COURT: That's what you want her to testify to.
02 You want her to give her opinion that more than one person --
03 well, tell me what testimony you're going to --
04 MR. HILL: That there's evidence -- That there's
05 evidence in the book itself that there's multiple authorship.
06 THE COURT: That's her opinion then?
07 MR. HILL: Yes.
08 THE COURT: And tell me what she's relying upon to
09 determine -- to form that opinion and whether it has any
10 credence or acceptability in any kind of a body or if it's
11 just -- could I come in there and say, "I've read this thing
12 and I really believe there's more than one person"?
13 MR. HILL: Okay, Judge. She's relying on standard
14 accepted principles of literary style which says that you look
15 at --
16 THE COURT: Outline a few of those for me.
17 MR. HILL: Language choice, idiom; considerations of
18 regional dialect; considerations of spelling; considerations of
19 consistency; consideration of perspective, point of view; and
20 consideration of --
21 THE COURT: Now, let me interrupt you just a little.
22 That's what she does when she makes a literary analysis, isn't
23 it, is look at all those various things?
24 MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: And then she forms a conclusion that it
00069 {12:16:16pm}
01 was more than one person that did it; is that right?
02 MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor. Can I address the
03 standard?
04 THE COURT: Are there any other group of, quote,
05 experts that does this sort of thing and who would have an
06 opportunity to examine her methodology and so forth and
07 determine whether she's doing it right? And is she accepted,
08 has she written or has she been accepted by any of her peer
09 groups?
10 MR. HILL: There's no formal organization that I'm
11 aware of in what I guess we would have to call the literary
12 forensics that we're talking about.
13 THE COURT: There's no association of literary
14 analysts?
15 MR. HILL: There's no -- well, I don't think there
16 probably is a formal association of literary analysts, Judge.
17 However, there are books that have been written that identify
18 this as a reliable method. I'll give you an example. The
19 movie Primary Colors, perhaps you've seen the movie.
20 THE COURT: I've seen it.
21 MR. HILL: You remember the book, --
22 THE COURT: Read it. Read the book.
23 MR. HILL: -- the book that preceded it was written
24 anonymously and a professor of English at Vassor College --
25 THE COURT: Kline wrote it.
00070 {12:16:17pm}
01 MR. HILL: Yeah, but the only reason Kline had to
02 come out and admit it is because Don Foster analyzed the
03 writing of George Stephanopolis and everybody else who was on
04 the train and --
05 THE COURT: And eliminated everybody but him?
06 MR. HILL: Yeah, by using the same or very similar
07 approach, the approach of any competent literary analyst. The
08 people who do this are the people that judge writing
09 competitions, who evaluate the writings of students, who are
10 intent on being writers, who are either --
11 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Have you had --
12 have you found any cases where a court has allowed a literary
13 analyst to testify in his opinion, his or her opinion, with
14 regard to just exactly what you're doing here? Have you got
15 some cases?
16 MR. HILL: To exactly what we're doing here? I've
17 seen cases --
18 THE COURT: Well, say, more than one.
19 MR. HILL: There are cases in the copyright arena
20 that are cited in our brief, Your Honor, where literary
21 analysts are used, and there's a specific reference to one
22 Southern District of New York case, I believe, to the fact that
23 expert literary analysts did testify to their competing
24 interpretations of a work. In that copyright case, the issue
25 was literary analysis to show parity or nonparity. And that's
00071 {12:16:19pm}
01 the same -- that issue is actually going on right now in
02 Atlanta regarding the so-called sequel to Gone With The Wind.
03 THE COURT: Have you had any cases with regard to
04 this sort of an expert where Daubert or Khumo has raised its
05 ugly head yet?
06 MR. HILL: Just the case last month in Atlanta.
07 THE COURT: Huh?
08 MR. HILL: Just the case last month in Atlanta,
09 Judge, where you had a professor of African-American studies
10 who was an influential black writer, a professor of English at
11 Emory University and one other eastern school testifying as
12 experts on literary analysis over the content of Wind Done
13 Gone, which is the sequence to Gone With The Wind.
14 THE COURT: Oh, that's right. The Gone With The Wind
15 deal?
16 MR. HILL: It's debatable whether it's a sequel.
17 THE COURT: Well, there was not a copyright
18 infringement there, or there was?
19 MR. HILL: They held both, actually. The district
20 court entered a preliminary injunction and the 11th Circuit
21 just reversed it on emergency appeal.
22 THE COURT: Wind Done Gone is going to come out,
23 isn't it?
24 MR. HILL: Well, it is but the litigation is ongoing.
25 THE COURT: Oh, it is? They're going to the Supreme
00072 {12:16:21pm}
01 Court on that?
02 MR. HILL: No. It was just on a preliminary
03 injunction, Judge, so it has gone back down to the district
04 court.
05 THE COURT: Okay. What do y'all think about it? Let
06 me hear from y'all about this expert here.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: It's remote, Judge, in the terms of
08 whether or not this Court can consider that technique to be
09 reliable enough to allow the jury to consider it. None of what
10 counsel has said here specifically relates to what this expert
11 is going to do in this case. The identification of who wrote
12 Primary Colors, the dispute about -- and the expertise these
13 people utilize to teach and analyze student writing have
14 nothing to do with testifying to an ultimate opinion in this
15 case that will affect the outcome that based upon these various
16 techniques that I have available to me by virtue of my
17 education and the fact I can write, I'm going to explain to
18 them that, in my opinion, this is 70 different -- 20 different,
19 10 different people that wrote this." And, if you take their
20 view of it, they say this is not human writing. So, that's an
21 interesting question. Has this woman ever seen writing from
22 celestial beings that she can stand as an expert and determine
23 whether all those things apply?
24 THE COURT: If you'll get her a job as an expert, I
25 bet you she'll come up with one.
00073 {12:16:24pm}
01 I'm being facetious.
02 Both of these experts can come up with whatever --
03 MR. ABOWITZ: And they do, Judge.
04 THE COURT: All right. I tell you what, this is an
05 interesting question and it's not just because of my interest
06 in it but I'm going to take this one under consideration and
07 get you all to give me any additional authorities or analysis
08 with this. This is not going to be offered until later in --
09 MR. HILL: Right. Probably won't come up until next
10 week.
11 THE COURT: Well, give them to me and my very able
12 law clerk as quickly as you can and we'll rag it around a
13 little bit.
14 MR. HILL: We would like, Your Honor, however, if you
15 rule in advance on the motion, we still would like to reserve
16 the right to make an offer of proof --
17 THE COURT: Oh, you'll get --
18 MR. HILL: -- outside the presence of the jury.
19 THE COURT: You'll obviously get an opportunity to do
20 that. If I deny it, you'll get an opportunity to make an offer
21 of proof.
22 MR. HILL: And I just want to raise a point of
23 clarification, that Mr. McMullan has made a number of
24 statements and characterizations regarding The Urantia Book and
25 Ms. Engstrom is also a -- has read The Urantia Book cover to
00074 {12:16:26pm}
01 cover and her perceptions from having read it may not be the
02 same as his. In the event that Your Honor grants the motion in
03 limine, I'm assuming that that's not going to prevent her from
04 testifying about her perception about the case the same way I
05 anticipate Mr. McMullan is going to do as he has done in his
06 declarations. It may not be conclusionary but --
07 THE COURT: The way I understood it, she was going to
08 offer her opinion that it was written by more than one person
09 and that's --
10 MR. HILL: That's what we're seeking to have her
11 qualified as an expert for.
12 THE COURT: Now then, aside and apart from that, you
13 intend to offer her as a witness as to what she understands the
14 book to mean or what?
15 MR. HILL: No. As to her perception about the way
16 that the book is put together, the way that concepts are
17 discussed. I mean, they're advocating this theory that this
18 is a -- that this is a -- I guess they call it a unified
19 literary work and have advanced several contentions towards
20 that end dealing with everything from the way that the papers
21 are organized to the internal contents of each of the papers,
22 and Mr. McMullan certainly has no more credentials than
23 Ms. Engstrom to offer that kind of lay opinion testimony.
24 THE COURT: Okay. But those are conclusions -- it
25 would be her opinion or, quote, conclusions, would it not?
00075 {12:16:33pm}
01 MR. HILL: It would not be -- well, it may be lay
02 opinion, Judge, the same way that Mr. McMullan's testimony
03 about his perceptions of the book from having read it would be
04 lay opinions. I just want to make sure that what's good for
05 the goose is good for the gander.
06 THE COURT: You intend to object if he gets in there
07 and starts saying, "In my opinion, it was done so and so," and
08 you're going to object to his opinion being offered in that
09 regard?
10 MR. HILL: If he gets up there and he starts
11 testifying that, you know, "Well, you know, the reason why I
12 think this is a unified literary work is because, you know, it
13 has a beginning and a middle and an end and it follows
14 through -- there's places in the book where it's all
15 chronological," and starts advancing this towards his --
16 towards the conclusion that best meets his own end, I want to
17 make sure that I have a right to call a witness who may bring
18 out things from the book that don't particularly comport with
19 that.
20 THE COURT: Murray is squirming over here. Let me
21 see what he has to say.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: I think Mr. McMullan stands much higher
23 on the threshold than a lay witness. The testimony will be
24 that he has developed a comprehensive index of this book, that
25 he's read it hundreds of times, has developed the derivative
00076 {12:16:35pm}
01 works, has authored derivative works on the book, and he is
02 accepted in that community as an expert.
03 THE COURT: You want to offer his opinion but you
04 don't want --
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, if she can qualify on that basis,
06 yeah.
07 MR. HILL: Well, all you have -- I mean, all you'd
08 have to do is --
09 MR. ABOWITZ: She read it once.
10 MR. HILL: That's not true. You don't know how many
11 times she's read the book at this point.
12 The point of it is is that this is either lay opinion
13 testimony or it's not, Judge. And if it's lay opinion
14 testimony, under the rule, it has to be based on rational
15 perceptions of the witness. Presumably the witness would have
16 to have some experience in having read the book. And once that
17 threshold is crossed, provided that the Court thinks that the
18 conclusion has relevance, which I think the Court's summary
19 judgment order speaks to the fact that it does, --
20 THE COURT: I don't have a motion before me with
21 regard to his testimony right now.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: Correct.
23 THE COURT: And I'm taking this other one into
24 consideration. And then I suppose what we'll have to do is
25 just object to his, when it's offered, if you have an objection
00077 {12:16:36pm}
01 to his testimony. And then you would further have, if I permit
02 it when you object to it, then you would reissue or reiterate
03 your support for her being allowed to express opinions. Let's
04 leave it at that.
05 MR. HILL: That's fine.
06 THE COURT: Okay. Scott Wharton.
07 MR. HILL: I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure but that
08 we might be able to reach an agreement regarding Mr. Wharton's
09 testimony as an expert witness given the Judge's summary
10 judgment order.
11 Are you all intending to criticize the original
12 registration certificate, specifically the listing of Urantia
13 Foundation as author on the original registration certificate?
14 Because I think that's probably the only expert opinion that we
15 would bring Mr. Wharton in on.
16 THE COURT: They're objecting on the basis of legal
17 conclusions, and you're attempting to get him to testify as to,
18 quote, procedures. Is that a dichotomy that makes any sense or
19 not?
20 MR. HILL: Well, I think there is a standard of
21 practice about listing organizations as author on an
22 application for copyright and I certainly think that it's
23 acceptable for Mr. Wharton to testify as to what that standard
24 is and what copyright practitioners would look to in that
25 standard without drawing the ultimate -- without drawing any
00078 {12:16:39pm}
01 ultimate conclusions about the nature of the work which are the
02 conclusions that are in this case.
03 THE COURT: Well, let me tell you, I can't issue a
04 ruling in advance on this other than a generalized ruling that
05 we all know that a witness cannot invade the province of the
06 court or the jury in testifying with regard to legal
07 conclusions. I reiterate that, and then we're just going to
08 have to kind of analyze those as the questions come about as to
09 whether it falls under that prohibition or not.
10 MR. HILL: That's fine, Judge.
11 THE COURT: Now then, Katharine Harries and Arden
12 Schilb (sp).
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes, Your Honor. Katharine
14 Harries was a Forum member. She began going to what is now
15 Urantia Foundation headquarters at the age of -- she's not
16 sure -- 7, 8 or 9. That was in 1934. She was born in 1925.
17 She began to read papers in '38 and '39 and she joined the
18 Forum in 1941.
19 Now, they say that she shouldn't be allowed to testify
20 because either it's hearsay and not based on her personal
21 knowledge regarding the Forum, the Contact Commission, and the
22 question-and-answer process, etc., or it's irrelevant because
23 she joined after the questions had stopped, after the papers
24 had been complete. They cite, for the proposition that the
25 papers are complete, the book itself. They say that certain
00079 {12:16:40pm}
01 parts ended in certain times but they state they were -- that
02 the book was certainly complete by 1936.
03 Well, you know, they haven't taken her deposition. They
04 don't know what she's going to say. I'm going to tell you
05 she's going to say that it wasn't complete at that time; there
06 were still questions being asked and still responses being
07 received. Now, that makes it relevant, and also, since she has
08 observed this, it makes it not hearsay.
09 THE COURT: I think he's got a right to call her --
10 MR. PLOURDE: You know, Judge --
11 THE COURT: -- and testify as to what she saw and did
12 at that time. Not what had necessarily taken place previous to
13 that. But I think -- I don't think there's any question that
14 she can testify -- and it also occurs to me that that might be
15 relevant, what they did at the time she was there might be
16 relevant as to what they had done. In other words, the jury
17 could draw some conclusions from what she said about their
18 activities as to what did take place. But she can't testify
19 that it took place but simply about what she did as she was
20 there.
21 MR. PLOURDE: Honestly, Judge, you know, the evidence
22 I think is so fairly complete, that it was done -- that the
23 book was done by 1936, that anything that she says is just
24 not --
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Well, --
00080 {12:16:42pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: -- not credible. Let me finish.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I apologize.
03 MR. PLOURDE: Not credible. I mean, the history of
04 the Urantia movement that they rely on -- I mean, all the
05 evidence.
06 MR. HILL: It says --
07 THE COURT: That would be argument.
08 MR. PLOURDE: If I could finish the sentence without
09 being interrupted, I think we might be able to get to the
10 bottom of this.
11 You know, to the extent that there's that limited thread
12 of proof that they may be able to offer to contradict all the
13 evidence that's before the Court to the contrary, you know, I
14 suppose it is relevant.
15 Schilb, they don't make any argument and I think the
16 argument is pertinent to that. All they say that she'll
17 testify to is regarding the formation of the Urantia Foundation
18 in 1950 and that's not relevant to any issue.
19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, she joined The Forum
20 in 1949. The book was published in '55. The Urantia
21 Foundation was formed in 1950.
22 THE COURT: Yeah, I'm going to deny the motion with
23 regard to her.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Okay.
25 THE COURT: Arden Schilb. Tell me about that.
00081 {12:16:43pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: That's what I was talking about.
02 THE COURT: Okay. Who is Katharine Harries?
03 MR. HILL: That's who we have been talking about.
04 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Two different people?
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes.
06 THE COURT: You're going to offer the testimony of
07 two different people?
08 MR. PLOURDE: On Schilb, what they say Schilb will
09 testify to is regarding the formation of Urantia Foundation in
10 1950. As they just said, she didn't join the Forum until 1949,
11 long after the book was complete. The formation --
12 THE COURT: I think -- and I'm interrupting you again
13 -- but I think that's argument. I think you can point that out
14 and it's argument that it's her credibility in that regard or
15 her knowledge or the impact or value of it. But I'm going to
16 deny the motion in limine.
17 All right. Does that finish it all on the motions in
18 limine? Have we got any more?
19 MR. PLOURDE: That's it.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Let's talk about -- what else? Do
21 you all have copies of the proposed instructions and the
22 verdict form and interrogatories and all that sort of stuff?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, may I just address a question on
24 the Court's procedures on voir dire? Are you going to
25 permit -- How are you going to handle that?
00082 {12:16:45pm}
01 THE COURT: Well, I wanted to talk about that some.
02 I don't know whether we ought to get into -- maybe we ought to
03 take a luncheon break now and then I'll have another session
04 with you. Certainly, I want to turn you over to the tender
05 mercies of Anil and Cindy, if she wants to participate, with
06 regard to an instructions conference this afternoon. Let's see
07 what we need to do. I don't think we can do it before we take
08 a luncheon break.
09 We need to talk about preliminary statements. Have you
10 all had a hand at doing that yet, preliminary statements by the
11 Court to the jury outlining the simplicities of this little
12 jewel?
13 MR. HILL: I like the preliminary statement in the
14 instructions just fine.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me ask you this --
16 MR. HILL: There may be a little more advance preview
17 to that.
18 THE COURT: To tell you the truth, I haven't read --
19 I read the proposed instructions but I didn't remember the
20 preliminary statement in that regard. But I do need a good
21 preliminary statement.
22 And then let's discuss just for a minute what you all
23 would suggest with regard to the voir dire examination. I can
24 do what I normally do. What I normally do is ask them
25 questions, and certainly ask them how many copyright lawsuits
00083 {12:16:46pm}
01 they've been involved in and how many have they decided and how
02 many of their family members have been sued for copyright
03 violations and all that sort of thing. But, quite seriously,
04 then I ask them if they could be fair and impartial to all the
05 parties and their previous experience as jurors, and so forth.
06 And then I let them stand up, each one of the people that are
07 under consideration, and make a brief statement with regard to
08 their background, education, interests and so forth, academic
09 and otherwise.
10 Normally, I don't permit the attorneys to ask any specific
11 questions simply in the interest of time. I think I'd be
12 willing to consider doing that if I could get some idea what
13 you wanted to ask. I usually let the attorneys then submit any
14 questions that they have to me to ask of any individual juror.
15 Something may have peaked your interest or concern and I
16 usually do that. I might even deviate that a little and let
17 you all participate. How do all you feel about it? I never
18 knew a lawyer that didn't want to participate in voir dire, so
19 I assume you all do. How can I put some kind of a handle on it
20 and let you get to the main things you want to get at?
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, if the Court were to follow the
22 procedure that has been outlined here and give us a little bit
23 of time, I don't know, 20 minutes or so, to follow up on that,
24 and anything more than that that comes up, I think that would
25 be helpful.
00084 {12:16:48pm}
01 THE COURT: Do all of y'all agree with that?
02 MR. HILL: I don't have a problem with your
03 suggestion. You take it first, let them talk, and then give
04 Murray and I or Ross and I --
05 THE COURT: With the normal caveats of no hugging and
06 kissing of the jurors and all that sort of thing when you're
07 conducting the voir dire.
08 MR. HILL: No characterization of the evidence.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Do we have the Layn Phillips rule in
10 effect?
11 THE COURT: What's that?
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Tethered to the podium.
13 THE COURT: All right. Let's do that. I'm going to
14 let you all have -- after I have a hand at it and before we
15 start passing for cause and so forth, I'm going to let you all
16 have about -- let's say 15 minutes to the side. Can you both
17 do it in 15 minutes?
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, can we agree to the 15 and then
19 if we get into something that creates a problem, we can --
20 THE COURT: You can ask for some additional time, and
21 so forth. But try to limit it to 15 minutes so you get the
22 ones that you're really interested in. I think I'll do that in
23 this case. So we'll take -- normally, we only allow about 15
24 minutes in opening statement in these cases per side but I
25 think we're going to deviate from that in this case. But in
00085 {12:16:50pm}
01 the voir dire, I'll try to do it, get them to stand up and make
02 some statements, and then give you about 15 minutes to the side
03 and we'll just go from there.
04 All right. Have you got all your proposed -- your voir
05 dire questions submitted?
06 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
07 THE COURT: Are they all in?
08 MR. HILL: Yes, Judge.
09 THE COURT: I haven't seen those yet.
10 I'm going to turn you over this afternoon --
11 Anil, when do you want to start meeting with these
12 gentlemen? 1:30? Do you all want to get back after lunch
13 and --
14 THE LAW CLERK: Do you all need some additional time
15 to prepare?
16 MR. HILL: I actually have a couple of questions,
17 Judge, since I have never tried a case in your courtroom
18 before.
19 THE COURT: Fire away.
20 MR. HILL: If you don't mind.
21 First of all, there is an issue, we're filing a motion
22 this afternoon to quash a subpoena that was served at the
23 settlement conference last week upon Richard Keeler, the
24 president of Urantia Foundation. He resides in Evanston,
25 Wyoming but was here pursuant to the Court's order that someone
00086 {12:16:51pm}
01 with the authority to settle the case be present at the
02 settlement conference. I accepted service for him at the
03 settlement conference from Mr. Abowitz.
04 The argument is they have two of his deposition
05 transcripts that I believe they already were prepared to read
06 to the jury. That's 1,200 miles away. I think it's pretty
07 clear under the law that they can't require -- they can't
08 require that subpoena -- that subpoenaed witness to travel
09 1,200 miles and make himself available for the duration of the
10 trial.
11 THE COURT: Have you filed a motion to quash on that?
12 MR. HILL: We're filing it this afternoon.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It has been filed. We have the
14 service copies here.
15 MR. HILL: I haven't signed the service copies yet.
16 THE COURT: Why don't you furnish a copy to them and
17 I'll give them an opportunity to respond.
18 MR. HILL: Sure. I just wanted to make sure the
19 Court was aware of that issue.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: I'd like the record to reflect, Judge,
21 that I did not attempt to serve Mr. Keeler. I first asked
22 counsel if he would accept the subpoena and he agreed that he
23 would.
24 MR. HILL: Acceptance of service doesn't resolve the
25 jurisdiction.
00087 {12:16:53pm}
01 THE COURT: I mean, the record will so reflect what
02 you've said.
03 How much time do you need to respond to this?
04 MR. ABOWITZ: I haven't seen it, Judge.
05 THE COURT: Well, time is kind of the essence.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: It is for us too.
07 THE COURT: Yeah.
08 MR. HILL: These trustees of Urantia Foundation are
09 volunteers. They don't get paid. They have jobs. They've got
10 not one but two deposition transcripts.
11 THE COURT: I'd rather get their response to the
12 legal aspect of it before we get into the equities of it and so
13 forth. Can you all put someone to work on it during the noon
14 hour --
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I will.
16 THE COURT: -- and try to get it in by 4:00 or 4:30
17 this afternoon? If you can't, get it in first thing in the
18 morning and I'll take a look at it.
19 MR. HILL: Can we -- Can we go ahead and agree as to
20 how long the Court is going to give us for opening statements?
21 THE COURT: 15 minutes unless more is needed. Oh,
22 opening statements?
23 MR. HILL: Opening.
24 THE COURT: I thought you meant voir dire.
25 MR. HILL: I'm curious.
00088 {12:16:54pm}
01 THE COURT: Oh, I don't know. What do you suggest?
02 MR. HILL: Either 30 or 45 minutes, depending upon --
03 I'm agreeable with --
04 THE COURT: What do you all suggest? Are you going
05 to divide it or each one --
06 MR. PLOURDE: Murray is going to take it.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: 30.
08 THE COURT: If we can get Murray to shut up in 30
09 minutes, it would be a miracle. We'll try. 30 minutes.
10 MR. HILL: An hour on closing?
11 THE COURT: Let me wait for -- at our final
12 instructions conference, I'll make a decision. That depends a
13 little bit on how long the evidence has taken.
14 Now, one thing I am going to consider doing, and I haven't
15 decided to do this yet, is maybe let you use in closing
16 argument outlines of the interrogatories and the verdict forms
17 for educational purposes, not to go with the jury to the jury
18 box -- or to the jury deliberation room. So, in your closing
19 argument you can say, "If you find this, this and this, this is
20 the interrogatory you'll mark and this is so and so."
21 MR. HILL: Like having the verdict form blown up?
22 THE COURT: Kind of blown up and demonstrated to them
23 but I wanted you to understand that I'm not going to let them
24 take them down into the jury room with them but let you use it
25 in your closing.
00089 {12:16:56pm}
01 Let's see. That's all I can think of. There'll be a lot
02 of other things. I'll see you all -- why don't you come back
03 at 1:30. Is that a sufficient break?
04 MR. HILL: Should be fine.
05 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, are you going to be here this
06 afternoon at all?
07 THE COURT: I'll be here all afternoon. I'm going to
08 be tied up in some other matters though.
09 MR. PLOURDE: There was one issue in the instructions
10 that we were hoping to take up. I don't think it's a big deal.
11 It's use of the term "conduit" in the instructions and we were
12 hoping to get you to consider --
13 THE COURT: All right. I'll be here. When my law
14 clerk thinks it's an appropriate time, if you all want to come
15 in, I'll take a look at that after you all have had an
16 opportunity to hash it out. I don't want to be a part of all
17 the preliminary negotiations on them but you want that done, I
18 assume, before opening statements and so forth?
19 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah. Yes, Judge. I mean, I think it
20 will only take a second to resolve.
21 THE COURT: I'll be here and Anil will start meeting
22 with you all at 1:30, gentlemen. Thank you very kindly.
23 (PROCEEDINGS CLOSED)
24
00090 {00:00:00PM}
01 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
02 I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
03 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
03
04
04
05
05 Date Greg Bloxom
06
07
08
09
00001 {10:29:14am}
01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
02 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
03
04 MICHAEL FOUNDATION, INC.,
04
05 Plaintiff,
05
06 vs. CASE NO. CV-00-0885-W
06
07 URANTIA FOUNDATION, et al.,
07
08 Defendants.
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 HAD TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2001
13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEE R. WEST, SENIOR JUDGE PRESIDING
13
14 JURY TRIAL - VOLUME I OF VII
15
16
17
18
19 A P P E A R A N C E S
20 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. ROSS A. PLOURDE
20 MR. MURRAY E. ABOWITZ
21 Attorneys at Law
21 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
22
22 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. STEVEN G. HILL
23 MR. PETER SCHOENTHALER
23 MR. ERIC MAURER
24 Attorneys at Law
24 Atlanta, Georgia
25
25
00002 {10:29:14am}
01 INDEX OF VOLUME I
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES ................................... 50
04 PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT ........................... 68
05 DEFENDANTS' OPENING STATEMENT ........................... 77
05
06 PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES:
06
07 KENNETH RICHARD KEELER
07
08 DIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) ....................... 93
08
09 **********
10
00003 {10:29:14am}
01 PROCEEDINGS:
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE JUDGE'S
04 CHAMBERS, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
05 THE COURT: Okay, gentlemen. Let's hear a
06 discussion, first, of the settlement and compromise. You
07 submitted a brief. Let's rehash that and see what you --
08 you've cited some authority here. Let me hear from y'all
09 again. No, it's your motion, isn't it, on the settlement and
10 compromise?
11 MR. HILL: It is, Judge.
12 THE COURT: Why don't you restate your position in
13 that regard.
14 MR. HILL: Our position is that bad faith in the
15 cybersquatting claim is an element of the offense and for them
16 to bring in settlement negotiations evidence as a way of
17 negativing our claim of bad faith, which is one of the elements
18 of our prima facie case, is inappropriate. And where it is
19 coming in for that purpose, the residual exceptions for things
20 like proving a contention of undue delay are meaningless. They
21 say in the brief that they filed that the reason why it's
22 probative is because it shows that Mr. McMullan didn't act in
23 bad faith, or, in the alternative, it keeps the damages down.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Now, you filed a brief citing some
25 additional authority. Tell me what you contend this authority
00004 {10:29:17am}
01 supports.
02 MR. PLOURDE: Well, Judge, if I could just fine tune
03 what he said a little bit. Obviously, if it wasn't probative
04 to something, it wouldn't be admissible. I think what 408 goes
05 to is eliminating the kind of evidence that shows that a party
06 has some conscious awareness of their liability or some
07 conscious awareness that their claim is no good as opposed to
08 going directly to an element of the claim and defeating an
09 element of the claim.
10 The authority that we submitted, Judge, is in the bad
11 faith insurance adjustment area. We submitted a case that
12 states that where settlement negotiations showing or tending to
13 show that the insurance company failed to make a good-faith
14 offer -- in other words, the insured was entitled to submit
15 evidence that the insurance company failed to make a good-faith
16 offer in establishing the claim, it's the inverse of what we're
17 trying to do here. We're trying to use it to negate --
18 THE COURT: That's the only authority you could
19 find? You couldn't find authority for the converse of the
20 situation?
21 MR. PLOURDE: I didn't find any cases either way on
22 the converse.
23 But the case that was cited that says --
24 THE COURT: Urico (sp) or whatever the name of that
25 case is?
00005 {10:29:21am}
01 MR. PLOURDE: Yes. That case doesn't say what they
02 said it says. What it says is that -- or it basically says
03 that while it may be admissible to offer -- you know, to prove
04 no bad faith, what the party there is offering it for is to
05 show -- I'm getting this screwed up, Judge -- is there, the
06 claim was --
07 THE COURT: I don't need any help in getting screwed
08 up.
09 MR. PLOURDE: Listen, I'm doing this from memory.
10 There, the claim was you didn't step in and defend us, and
11 the insurance company offered or tried to offer evidence of
12 their settlement offer and the Court said, "That doesn't go to
13 whether or not you were in bad faith for failing to step in and
14 defend. That's just your monetary settlement offer. It
15 doesn't address the issue so it's not relevant to that issue."
16 That's what that case held. It didn't say if the issue had
17 been bad faith failure to --
18 THE COURT: All right. Now, here's what I'm going to
19 do on this because I'm a little bit -- I'm still a little bit
20 confused.
21 MR. PLOURDE: Well, I contributed to it.
22 THE COURT: I'm not going to grant the motion in
23 limine but I'm also not making a final ruling on this
24 admissibility. That will come when you offer it or when you
25 attempt to offer it. Don't make any statements about it in
00006 {10:29:24am}
01 any -- you know, that evidence in any of the opening statements
02 or anything of that nature. Then, when you get ready to
03 present that, let me then have an opportunity at side bar,
04 again, approach at side bar and say, "Judge, we want to present
05 it at this time and this is why in the context of the trial
06 itself we think it ought to be admissible." Because in this
07 context here, I'm just not really able to understand the
08 rational or reason for it.
09 MR. HILL: We did find a better case last night,
10 Judge, but Eric is not in here and I don't know the citation.
11 THE COURT: Well, you'll have -- pick it out and give
12 it to them when they make this renewed effort to get it in.
13 Okay. Now then, we have two or three others here.
14 Motion regarding presentation of trial deposition taken in
15 previous unrelated actions. And you're seeking to prevent
16 that. Let me hear your arguments in support of the motion in
17 limine in that regard.
18 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, what it comes down to, and I
19 think both sides have identified the issue, is whether the
20 party who defended the deposition the last time had the same
21 motive to cross-examine the witness as we do. That's really
22 what it comes down to.
23 I went back -- as we said yesterday, their motive -- their
24 case was this was offered by spiritual beings and The Urantia
25 Foundation didn't have anything to do with it. Our case is
00007 {10:29:30am}
01 this was offered by the patient. And I went back and read that
02 deposition again last night and Joe Lewis, who represented
03 Kristen Maaherra in that case, who was cross-examining, didn't
04 ask a single word, didn't ask a single question about the
05 patient. What he asked was stuff like, "Isn't it true that
06 this was authored by spiritual beings?" So we're going to let
07 a deposition in that has all the stuff that they want her to
08 say coming from questions that were asked by the lawyer that
09 was supposedly in our same position, and it just isn't fair. I
10 mean, we didn't have the ability to be there and ask the kinds
11 of questions that we would want to ask to establish that, in
12 fact, it was the patient that --
13 THE COURT: Well, is that different tactics in that
14 case versus your case? But if the motivation is --
15 MR. ABOWITZ: It's a different issue.
16 THE COURT: Huh?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: It's an entirely different issue.
18 MR. PLOURDE: Tactics? You know, Judge, I mean,
19 there's a fine line, I guess, between tactics and what you're
20 presenting for your case, but we are arguing for a different
21 result than --
22 THE COURT: Well, he lost, didn't he?
23 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah, which is one good reason --
24 THE COURT: And you want a different result.
25 Let me hear from y'all.
00008 {10:29:33am}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I have two points, and Steve might
02 have something to add.
03 The issue is: Who is the author? He asked her who the
04 author was and she said it was spiritual beings. That's what
05 she believes and that is her personal knowledge. I don't have
06 the transcript in front of me. The fact is that she answered
07 the question that is at issue here. The rule specifically says
08 it's not the same motive, it's not identical motive. It says
09 similar motive. I submit to the Court that trying to
10 invalidate a copyright based on who the author is is a similar
11 motive.
12 MR. HILL: I would just add one thing, Judge, and
13 that is that I don't think we're going to introduce the
14 portions of the Carlson deposition that refer to who the author
15 is.
16 THE COURT: That's one reason I asked y'all
17 yesterday, to designate and cross-designate, to see if there
18 was still any --
19 MR. HILL: Yeah, we have. I've got to get copies
20 made and then I'll be giving it off to them. What we're
21 interested in is more of the general, I guess, process
22 involving the Forum and the questions and background and how
23 the manuscripts arrived and how she viewed them and things of
24 that nature. I submit that in this case there is an incentive
25 on the part of all parties to develop that kind of information
00009 {10:29:35am}
01 and that kind of testimony the same way there was in the
02 preceding case. You know, maybe at the end of the day people
03 draw different conclusions from the background when they get to
04 the foreground of the process, but I don't think Helen Carlson
05 was a contact commissioner to even observe the subject, but her
06 testimony is nevertheless valuable because she does know things
07 about the way the questions were asked and the way that papers
08 came, and those are obviously issues in this case the same way
09 they were in the Maaherra case.
10 THE COURT: All right. Now, I'm going to deny the
11 motion in limine at this time and under these circumstances,
12 without prejudice to their right to object to them, again, when
13 they're offered and after -- because I think some of the -- at
14 least the objections might be narrowed somewhat after the
15 designation and cross-designation and so forth. All right? So
16 it's denied as of now.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, may we have an admonition the
18 same as you gave us --
19 THE COURT: Yeah. Don't get into the details of that
20 testimony in opening statements or anything at least until the
21 Court has had an opportunity to pass on ruling -- I mean on the
22 admissibility.
23 MR. HILL: I don't have the confidence to get into
24 the detail.
25 THE COURT: Well, I caution you in that regard
00010 {10:29:39am}
01 because the Court -- I think it's bad tactics any time to
02 detail evidence that you're going to offer and then at the
03 close of the case the other side says, "Look, he was going to
04 do that and it wasn't admitted by the Court or it's improper."
05 So, I would caution you -- you can generalize but I would
06 caution you against detailing evidence for that reason if
07 nothing else.
08 All right. Now then, I've denied that one.
09 Elizabeth Engstrom. You want to renew your objection to
10 her testimony?
11 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, listen, I was at the office
12 until 10 o'clock last night looking for some case that had
13 anything to do with it.
14 THE COURT: Couldn't come up with anything --
15 MR. PLOURDE: Couldn't come up with anything.
16 THE COURT: -- that would help you or me, either
17 one?
18 MR. PLOURDE: I wish I could. I think the general
19 standards apply.
20 THE COURT: Well, there's my gatekeeping role. When
21 she puts on her qualifications and so forth, then I will have
22 to rule on whether or not she's allowed to express opinions and
23 so forth, but I'm denying the motion in limine in advance.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, in that regard, is that the kind
25 of thing where we will be able to challenge her qualifications
00011 {10:29:43am}
01 before she gets into her opinion?
02 THE COURT: Well, yes, you can object at that time
03 and if I feel or I need to have a, quote, Daubert hearing, or
04 Khumo hearing, or whatever kind of hearing, I'll probably get
05 the jury out and let you all argue the matter at that time, if
06 I don't -- if I'm not concerned about it. If I'm going to
07 admit her testimony, I'm not too worried about it, I'll go
08 ahead and let it go without a hearing. You can request a
09 hearing and the reasons for it prior to the time she expresses
10 opinion at the time they put her on and are attempting to
11 qualify her and so forth. All right?
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
13 THE COURT: It's denied. The motion in limine is
14 denied.
15 All right. Scott Wharton, same ruling? Anybody have
16 anything new on Scott Wharton?
17 MR. PLOURDE: No, Your Honor. I thought you
18 indicated that you were going to deny that yesterday.
19 THE COURT: I have denied it, I assume. Did you find
20 anything new on it?
21 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah, I thought what you just said was
22 that --
23 THE COURT: We'll rule on that when he gets into
24 conclusions of law.
25 MR. PLOURDE: All right.
00012 {10:29:47am}
01 THE COURT: All right. What about Kathryn Harries
02 and Arden Schilb? Is that still ongoing?
03 MR. PLOURDE: No.
04 MR. HILL: You ruled on it.
05 THE COURT: I denied those already; right?
06 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah.
07 THE COURT: Okay. Have we got all the motions in
08 limine out of the way now?
09 MR. PLOURDE: I think so.
10 MR. HILL: I think so, Judge.
11 THE COURT: All right. Now, I want to talk with
12 you. Do you all have parties here who can settle this case?
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
14 THE COURT: Is there any possibility we can settle
15 this case? Now, I don't ever let anybody go to a trial, as
16 local counsel will tell you, without some attempts to settle
17 this case. There's several things I want to find out about
18 this case. Do we need to get the parties in here on this?
19 We don't need this on the record though unless you all --
20 MR. HILL: No, we don't need it on the record, Judge.
21 (A DISCUSSION WAS HAD OFF THE RECORD, AFTER WHICH A RECESS
22 WAS TAKEN, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN
23 OPEN COURT, WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
24 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
25 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name
00013 {11:03:04am}
01 is Lee West. I will serve as the judge of the law in this
02 case. I need the assistance of eight of you to serve as a
03 fellow judge, as the judge of the facts in this case.
04 Collectively, you'll serve to determine what the facts are in
05 this case. The first thing I want to do is to ask each of you
06 to stand at this time and be sworn with regard to your voir
07 dire examination.
08 (JURY PANEL SWORN)
09 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
10 We're going to seat 14 of you in the jury box. The first
11 juror will be seated at the back row on this end. We'll fill
12 up all seven seats. The eighth juror will be on the front row
13 at this end and we'll fill up all seven seats.
14 I will explain briefly what this lawsuit is about to the
15 best of my ability and ask you some questions designed to
16 determine if there's any reason why you could not serve as fair
17 and impartial jurors in this case. I'll even give -- and I'll
18 call on you to give some information with regard to your
19 background, your education, your work experience, your family,
20 and then I intend to, slightly unusually, give the attorneys an
21 opportunity to ask you some -- is this a prospective juror?
22 THE JURY CLERK: Yes, sir.
23 THE COURT: All right. You'll have to raise your
24 right hand and be sworn, sir.
25 (JUROR SWORN)
00014 {11:05:01am}
01 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
02 I was just explaining to your fellow jurors that we're
03 going to seat some of you in the box, ask you some questions,
04 ask you to give us some information about you to determine
05 whether you're disqualified for any reason from serving as a
06 fair and impartial juror in this case. And after we have
07 qualified 14 of you for cause, there may be some of you excused
08 and replaced by other members of the jury and that's why all of
09 you should listen very carefully to the questions that are
10 asked and answered in order to expedite the proceeding. But
11 after we have qualified 14 for cause, then each side will have
12 the right to excuse three, for a total of six, under what we
13 call the peremptory challenge procedure, leaving eight jurors
14 to serve as judges of the facts in this case.
15 As your name is called, please take your seat in the jury
16 box as I've outlined. The back row, the first juror at this
17 end, and we'll fill up the back row, and the eighth juror will
18 be at the front row on this end.
19 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Darrel Mounce. Is that
20 correct? Mounce, Mounce?
21 JUROR MOUNCE: Darrel Mounce?
22 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, sir.
23 Darrell Robinson, Linda Odland, Jacquelyn Littlepage,
24 Radis Earl Spencer, Amelia Gault, Elaine Svec, Richard Bales,
25 Kenneth Sterbenz, Mary Riepe -- Mary Jolene Riepe, Kyla Mach,
00015 {11:08:21am}
01 Freddie Wright, William Love, Juanita Hendricks, and Marsha
02 Ray.
03 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me
04 read a brief outline of what this lawsuit is about. This
05 lawsuit involves some complex laws, copyright laws and
06 trademark laws, by and between two foundations, a dispute over
07 the right to publish books or parts of a book called The
08 Urantia Book. Let me read this to you and all of you should
09 listen carefully.
10 The Michael Foundation, who is represented at this table,
11 has brought this case as plaintiff claiming that Urantia
12 Foundation's copyright, and Urantia will be represented at this
13 table, in The Urantia Book is invalid or, in the alternative,
14 that the publication and distribution of the book Jesus - A New
15 Revelation does not infringe the copyright of Urantia Book.
16 Michael Foundation claims that The Urantia Foundation
17 lacked the right to renew the copyright registration in a book
18 when it filed its application for copyright renewal in 1983.
19 Now, in response, Urantia Foundation has asserted claims
20 against The Michael Foundation and its chief executive officer,
21 Harry McMullan, III, that publication of Jesus - A New
22 Revelation, infringes the copyright in The Urantia Book.
23 Now, The Urantia Foundation also claims that Michael
24 Foundation and McMullan have violated the anti-cybersquatting
25 consumer protection act by registering, maintaining and using
00016 {11:10:48am}
01 the worldwide web domain names Urantia.org and UrantiaBook.com
02 and TheUrantiaBook.org.
03 The Urantia Foundation further claims The Michael
04 Foundation and McMullan have committed unfair and deceptive
05 trade practices by claiming copyright in Jesus - A New
06 Revelation and using certain worldwide web domain names in a
07 manner that Urantia Foundation asserts is misleading to
08 consumers.
09 Now, the foregoing recitation is given to you simply to
10 define the issues to be tried between the parties and such
11 statements do not constitute proof of any fact in issue in this
12 case. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned before, it will be
13 up to you to determine what the facts are in this case.
14 Now, let me introduce first the attorneys representing the
15 various parties. Mr. Murray Abowitz and Mr. Ross Plourde
16 represent what I'll refer to as The Michael Foundation and
17 Harry McMullan, III. Mr. McMullan, would you please stand.
18 And their interests, I think, if not synonymous, are very much
19 the same; is that correct?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: All right. You may be seated, please.
22 The Urantia Foundation is represented by Mr. Steven Hill,
23 Mr. Peter Schoenthaler, and Eric Maurer.
24 Would you introduce the representative of The Urantia
25 Foundation, if you will, Mr. Hill.
00017 {11:12:29am}
01 MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor. This is Tonia Baney, the
02 executive director of The Urantia Foundation.
03 THE COURT: Okay. You may be seated. Thank you.
04 First off, let me ask you: Do any of you know the
05 attorneys or the parties involved in this lawsuit?
06 Do any of you know anything about what purports to be the
07 facts in this lawsuit?
08 Have any of you ever even heard of The Urantia Book?
09 Have any of you ever heard of The Michael Foundation that
10 published a book called Jesus - A New Revelation? Have any of
11 you heard of that book or of The Michael Foundation?
12 I gather that you have not.
13 Now then, have any -- Do any of y'all know anything about
14 copyright law? Have any of you ever been involved in a
15 copyright litigation?
16 Tell me, if you will, and I'm not trying to embarrass you,
17 but tell me what you understand copyright law to be about, in
18 general.
19 JUROR RAY: Just in general, I'm a song writer and
20 I've written some music.
21 THE COURT: In other words, writers and musicians and
22 various can put things down and publish it and have it
23 copyrighted and that copyright provides certain protections
24 against other people doing it. You understand you've exhausted
25 my thorough knowledge about copyright law, at least until this
00018 {11:14:00am}
01 case started.
02 JUROR RAY: That's about all I know.
03 THE COURT: But do you understand that I will be
04 explaining to you, to the best of my ability, what the law is
05 with regard to copyright and trademark at the close of this
06 case, and during the course of this case, and you will be
07 called upon to apply the law that I give you as copyright law
08 and trademark law and apply that to the facts that you
09 determine to exist from the evidence in this case. Do you
10 understand the different roles?
11 JUROR RAY: (JUROR NODS HEAD)
12 THE COURT: Presumably, I will know enough and do
13 know enough about copyright law to explain that to you. I'll
14 attempt to do it in the simplest possible form. It's a
15 complicated area of the law. I think you probably appreciate
16 that. I may even -- I have to guard against
17 oversimplification, but I will give you the law in the form of
18 my instructions with regard to what the law is at the close of
19 this case and you're then to apply that to the facts that you
20 determine to exist.
21 Do any of you have any difficulty accepting those two
22 roles, you as judges of the facts collectively, and the Court
23 as the judge of the law? Anybody have any problem with that?
24 Let me ask again. Have any of you been involved in any
25 way in any copyright disputes, either in litigation or
00019 {11:15:24am}
01 otherwise? Any of you ever have any experience with copyright
02 law or trademark law?
03 All right. Again, at the risk of oversimplification,
04 these -- both of these organizations, Michael Foundation and
05 The Urantia Foundation, have published different books. One is
06 called The Urantia Book. It was first published in 1955, and
07 the evidence is undisputed that they got a copyright back in
08 1955, and then in 1983, I believe it was, they made an attempt
09 to renew that copyright and had some form of renewal approval.
10 The Michael Foundation published a portion of that book.
11 Approximately -- it's called part four, or it's one-fourth or
12 less of that book -- and it's called Jesus As Now Revealed, and
13 this litigation by and between the parties is to whether or not
14 The Urantia Foundation had a valid copyright, whether they
15 renewed that valid copyright, if valid, and whether or not
16 Michael Foundation infringed on that copyright and a trademark
17 in publishing the Jesus As Now Revealed.
18 Do any of you -- can you understand that as a simple
19 explanation of what this lawsuit is about?
20 Now, is there anything in that -- Are there any things in
21 that that any of you feel that you could not be a fair and
22 impartial juror in determining what the facts are in that
23 dispute? Any of you have any feelings about these -- the fact
24 that it's -- that there may be some sort of a religious dispute
25 here, does that cause any of you to have any qualms about your
00020 {11:17:11am}
01 ability to be fair and impartial by and between the parties in
02 this dispute?
03 All right. I gather not.
04 Have any of you ever registered either a patent or a
05 copyright or a trademark? Okay. Again, say, if you will, when
06 and where was that.
07 JUROR RAY: 1986 was the first one, an original song
08 that I wrote.
09 THE COURT: And it was a copyright?
10 JUROR RAY: It was a copyright.
11 THE COURT: What was the publication; do you recall?
12 JUROR RAY: A Picture of God is the title of the
13 song.
14 THE COURT: A Picture of --
15 JUROR RAY: A Picture of God.
16 THE COURT: Okay. And that was a picture that you
17 got a copyright on?
18 JUROR RAY: No, sir, it's a song and that's the
19 title.
20 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I'm a little hard of
21 hearing. You published a song, A Picture of God, and got a
22 copyright on it?
23 JUROR RAY: I copyrighted a song that I
24 self-published.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Now then, have you ever had any
00021 {11:18:05am}
01 dispute with anyone over your right of that?
02 JUROR RAY: No, sir.
03 THE COURT: Have you ever had reason to claim
04 infringement of your copyright against anyone?
05 JUROR RAY: No, sir.
06 THE COURT: So you've had no disputes?
07 JUROR RAY: (JUROR SHAKES HEAD)
08 THE COURT: Would there be anything in just the
09 simple fact that you registered a copyright that would cause
10 you any doubt about your ability to be fair and impartial in
11 this dispute?
12 JUROR RAY: No, sir.
13 THE COURT: I gather not. All right.
14 Anyone else have a patent, copyright or trademark?
15 I gather not.
16 As such, no one else has been subjected to any claim by
17 anyone else of a violation?
18 Now, let me repeat again: Do any of you have any
19 knowledge or understanding as to the nature or content of,
20 quote, The Urantia Book? That's U-R-A-N-T-I-A Book, The
21 Urantia Book. I think I asked if anyone had ever heard of it.
22 Have any of you ever heard of it?
23 I gather then that you have no knowledge about the nature
24 or content of that book? All right.
25 Now, aside and apart from Ms. Hendricks, (sic) have any of
00022 {11:19:21am}
01 you had any experience in publishing of any kind, publication
02 of anything?
03 I gather not.
04 I believe some evidence may come out that Mr. Harry
05 McMullan, one of the parties to this lawsuit, is part owner or
06 owner of Alliance Steel. Do any of you have any ownership of
07 any stock or any nexus or connection of any kind with an
08 organization known as Alliance Steel?
09 I gather not.
10 Okay. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want to ask you, if
11 you will, each, and we'll start with Mr. Mounce -- is that the
12 way you pronounce that?
13 JUROR MOUNCE: Mounce.
14 THE COURT: Mr. Mounce, I want to ask you to stand
15 and tell the parties and the Court about yourself briefly,
16 about your background, where you grew up and what your
17 educational background is, tell us a little bit about your
18 family and work experience and, if you will, tell us a little
19 bit what your interests are, your leisure interests. Do you
20 mind doing that?
21 JUROR MOUNCE: No, sir.
22 I was born in Springdale, Arkansas, in 1939. Went to
23 school in sixth grade and moved to California and went to
24 school in California for a short time and ended up in New
25 Mexico, Roswell, New Mexico, and finished my high school
00023 {11:21:35am}
01 there. I started with the fire department after high school
02 and worked there about seven-and-a-half years and then I had
03 moved back into Oklahoma City, transferred -- I just moved down
04 here and went to work for the fire department in Oklahoma City
05 for a short time and had a little bit of problem with my
06 captain at that time, so I resigned there and went to work in
07 El Reno as a machinist. I worked as a machinist there for
08 about three or four years. Rock Island at that time was going
09 under so I went to work -- put in application for the federal
10 reformatory in El Reno and went to work at the federal
11 reformatory in 1971, retired in 1991 with the Department of
12 Justice, and I'm retired now. I live in Mustang. I'm an
13 outdoorsman, fisherman, forest man, as far as outdoors life.
14 THE COURT: What about your family, Mr. Mounce? Do
15 you have a family?
16 JUROR MOUNCE: Yes, I do. I have five children. I'm
17 married. My wife works at the state capitol. She is an
18 executive secretary. She is still working.
19 THE COURT: Have you served -- let me ask you a
20 question: Have you served on a jury before?
21 JUROR MOUNCE: No, sir, I was never on as a juror.
22 THE COURT: You were in the jury pool but not on a
23 petit jury?
24 JUROR MOUNCE: I was a witness in some cases in the
25 Department of Justice, federal prison there.
00024 {11:23:24am}
01 THE COURT: Okay. At the federal prison, witness in
02 some cases growing out of your service there?
03 JUROR MOUNCE: That is correct, sir.
04 THE COURT: Anything about that experience in any way
05 that would prevent you from being fair and impartial in this
06 civil suit that you're on?
07 JUROR MOUNCE: Not that I know of; no, sir.
08 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Mounce, very kindly.
09 Mr. Robinson, Darrell Robinson.
10 JUROR ROBINSON: My name is Darrell Robinson. I was
11 born in Oklahoma City. Back when my folks moved to California,
12 I guess there's a lot of that, we came back when I was --
13 THE COURT: Incidentally, they've started to come
14 back since we have electricity, you know.
15 JUROR ROBINSON: I've got an aunt that tried to get
16 me out there.
17 I attended high school in Midwest City, graduated from
18 high school from Midwest City. I went to college a little bit,
19 not much. I have worked for the State of Oklahoma for 30
20 years. I have a wife, Barbara, and a son, Brian. My wife
21 works at Tinker Field where she's a secretary for the KC-135.
22 My son has a slight business in Stillwater where he's also
23 going to college and he's working at Abercrombie & Fitch, if I
24 said that right, out at Quail Springs Mall.
25 Like the gentleman here, I love to fish, love the
00025 {11:24:48am}
01 outdoors.
02 THE COURT: Mr. Robinson, you mentioned that you
03 worked for the State of Oklahoma for 30 years. What capacity?
04 JUROR ROBINSON: I'm sorry. I'm a printer for the
05 Department of Human Services. We print forms and most of the
06 stuff used by DHS. We do a lot of printing.
07 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Robinson, very kindly.
08 Linda Carol Odland. How do you pronounce it?
09 JUROR ODLAND: Odland. That's right. I was born and
10 raised in Oklahoma. High school, college. I married my
11 husband, he was in the military 30 years. We traveled around a
12 lot. I have three girls, all married; four grandchildren.
13 I've done real estate and dental assisting. That's about it.
14 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Odland.
15 Jacquelyn Littlepage.
16 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Yes, sir. Born and raised here in
17 Oklahoma City, one of five children. Graduated from high
18 school in 1996. Graduated from the University of Oklahoma last
19 month. I'll be taking a test next week in Houston to be a
20 certified personal trainer, and getting married next Monday.
21 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Littlepage.
22 Radis Spencer. Is that the way you pronounce that?
23 JUROR SPENCER: Radis.
24 THE COURT: Radis?
25 JUROR SPENCER: I'm 30. Was born in Oklahoma. I've
00026 {11:26:19am}
01 lived in several states but always seemed to come back here. I
02 have four children, been married eight years. Two years of
03 college. I sell automobiles at Hudiburg. Love to fish, love
04 to hunt, read, computers, spend time with the children.
05 THE COURT: Thank you very kindly.
06 Amelia Gault?
07 JUROR GAULT: I was born in Saguine, Texas and I
08 moved here to go to community college. I went through a couple
09 of years. I have two children and am happily married. On my
10 spare time, I spend with my family. My brother lives here as
11 well. And I work at Hertz.
12 THE COURT: Thank you very kindly, Ms. Gault.
13 Elaine Svec?
14 JUROR SVEC: Yes, sir.
15 THE COURT: Is that how you pronounce that?
16 JUROR SVEC: Yes, sir. I was born in Oklahoma City.
17 I grew up in Midwest City. I currently live in south Oklahoma
18 City. I work at Oklahoma City Community College. I attended
19 college at York College and Harding College and Oklahoma City
20 Community College. I'm the human resources assistant at
21 Oklahoma City Community College right now and I've been married
22 for 27, almost 28 years to my first husband. I have two
23 daughters. They're both in college.
24 THE COURT: Thank you very kindly, Ms. Svec.
25 Juanita Hendricks? Oh, I'm sorry. Did I miss --
00027 {11:28:02am}
01 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We have one that did not show,
02 Judge.
03 THE COURT: What happened here?
04 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We have one that did not show
05 up.
06 THE COURT: I want the one in that --
07 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Right. Marsha Ray.
08 THE COURT: Who is that? Write that down here.
09 Oh, okay. I'm with you now.
10 Marsha Ray, if you will.
11 JUROR RAY: I was born in Oklahoma City. We lived in
12 Tulsa about three years and then settled in Del City where I
13 attended school and graduated from Del City High School. I
14 went to college at University of Central Oklahoma and I married
15 my husband during college. We've been married 25 years and
16 have four children. In my spare time, it's church, family,
17 crafts, but I'm a singer in churches and song writer, and
18 that's me.
19 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Ray.
20 All right. Now, Ms. Hendricks.
21 JUROR HENDRICKS: I'm --
22 THE COURT: I apologize for getting you two mixed up
23 but our chart was a little bit --
24 JUROR HENDRICKS: I'm married. I have four
25 children. I was born in Oklahoma, graduated from Stroud High
00028 {11:29:17am}
01 School. I work out of my home with an accounting service.
02 With four children I don't have a lot of leisure time but I
03 enjoy reading and church and family.
04 THE COURT: Thank you.
05 William Henry Love.
06 JUROR LOVE: I was born in Alexandria, Virginia.
07 I've been here in the State of Oklahoma for five years. I've
08 been married 15 years to my wife. I've been in the military,
09 Army. I work for military justice. I like to fish. Favorite
10 sport is football, which is the Washington Redskins. I'm a
11 religious man, born-again Christian, and I love people.
12 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Love.
13 Freddie Wright.
14 JUROR WRIGHT: Yeah, my name is Freddie Wright.
15 First of all, I'd like to say that this lawyer here, I remember
16 that we were in an arbitration case together. I don't know
17 whether --
18 THE COURT: All right. Now, which -- Mr. Plourde?
19 JUROR WRIGHT: Right.
20 THE COURT: Tell me about it. Were you involved in
21 that litigation, arbitration yourself?
22 JUROR WRIGHT: I was just a witness.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Would there be anything in that
24 experience that would in any way cause you to be biased or
25 prejudiced either for or against Mr. Plourde in this case?
00029 {11:30:36am}
01 JUROR WRIGHT: No.
02 THE COURT: Could you be -- Are you satisfied that
03 you could be completely fair and impartial in litigation in
04 which he was involved?
05 JUROR WRIGHT: Yes.
06 THE COURT: And, if selected, would you serve fairly
07 and impartially?
08 JUROR WRIGHT: Yes, I would.
09 THE COURT: Go ahead.
10 JUROR WRIGHT: All right. My name is Freddie
11 Wright. I grew up in a place called Frederick, Oklahoma. I've
12 lived here in Oklahoma City for the last -- off and on about 35
13 years. I work out at Dayton Tire Company. I've been out there
14 for 24 years. I have a wife. I've been married for 29 years.
15 I have four kids. I have three daughters and one son. My
16 hobbies are bowling and I like football and stuff like that.
17 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
18 Kyla Kay Mach. Is that how you pronounce it?
19 JUROR MACH: It's Kyla Kay Mach.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 JUROR MACH: Born in Oklahoma City. Grew up in
22 Bethany. Graduated from Putnam West High School. Some
23 college. Married to my second husband, it will be 20 years
24 next month. I have a 15-year-old son who participates in a lot
25 of athletic activity, so I spend a lot of my time following him
00030 {11:31:55am}
01 around.
02 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Mach.
03 Kenneth Sterbenz. Is that how you pronounce that?
04 JUROR STERBENZ: Yes, sir, that's correct. I was
05 born and raised in Oklahoma. Been here all my life. Graduated
06 from Putnam City High School. A couple of years of college at
07 the University of Central Oklahoma. I'm married. Been married
08 for 34 years to the same person. I have a daughter, 30 years
09 old. District sales manager for a hand tool company out of
10 Chicago for the last 15 years.
11 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Sterbenz.
12 Richard Bales; is that correct?
13 JUROR BALES: Yeah. Name is Richard. I'm 21. Enjoy
14 computers. I'm not working.
15 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Bales.
16 May I see counsel at the bench, please, and, if you will,
17 bring your boards.
18 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
19 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
20 THE COURT: I'm prepared to let you all conduct
21 limited voir dire with regard to these prospective jurors
22 unless you all feel the need not to do so. Would you like to
23 do that?
24 MR. ABOWITZ: I would like to inquire, briefly.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Now, I'm not going to let you go
00031 {11:33:34am}
01 into very great detail and too long a period of time, so keep
02 it pretty short. What order? You first, plaintiffs first, is
03 that agreeable?
04 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
05 THE COURT: I'd say, try to keep it to about 15
06 minutes, if you can.
07 MR. HILL: Judge, do you have any objections -- Do
08 you have any objections to general questions to the entire
09 panel?
10 THE COURT: No. You use it however you wish to do
11 so, unless it gets too personal or something I feel --
12 MR. HILL: I'm not going to get personal.
13 THE COURT: Okay, gentlemen. I'll explain it to
14 them.
15 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
16 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
17 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
18 prospective jurors, I'm going to deviate slightly from the way
19 we normally do business. Ordinarily, the judge conducts the
20 entire voir dire examination of the prospective jurors but I've
21 agreed to allow counsel, each side, approximately 15 minutes,
22 to interrogate some or all of the jurors with regard to their
23 qualifications to sit and serve as fair and impartial jurors.
24 And, first, counsel, for the plaintiff, Mr. Abowitz.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
00032 {11:34:45am}
01 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. How are you? We're
02 glad to have you here to serve as jurors in this case. I'm
03 going to ask you a few questions.
04 As the Judge told you earlier, in addition to the elements
05 of the case that he recited to you, he told you that this case
06 has religious overtones. Mr. Love, you indicated to us, that
07 you're a born-again Christian and your religion is important to
08 you.
09 May I ask generally of the jury panel: How many other
10 people have a religion, follow it, and it is very important to
11 you?
12 Let me ask again, and I don't mean to violate any privacy
13 and I don't mean to delve into any of your religious feelings,
14 but since this is an issue in the case I feel somewhat
15 compelled on behalf of our clients to ask these questions.
16 There will be evidence in this case from Mr. McMullan that
17 The Urantia Book is the basis for his religion. That religion
18 obviously is not a mainstream religion. I would ask you, those
19 of you who -- I would ask all of you, whether your religion is
20 important to you or whether it's very important to you or
21 somewhat important or not important, is the fact that we're
22 here today to address issues in a religion, number one, other
23 than yours, is that going to affect your ability to be fair not
24 only to Mr. McMullan but also to the defendants in this case?
25 Everybody, can you, by shaking your head, tell me that you
00033 {11:36:58am}
01 can be fair and impartial notwithstanding that you're going to
02 hear evidence about a religious difference that is not a
03 mainstream religion, is that going to make any difference to
04 anybody on your impartiality?
05 With respect to the religious nature and overtones of this
06 case, there will be discussions about this religion, some of
07 the things that people believe in, that involves communications
08 from celestial beings, spirits. Is there anything about the
09 nature of that statement that I just made that would interfere
10 with your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in
11 this case?
12 In other words -- and let me ask it again because it's
13 important and neither side would want to find out in the middle
14 of the trial that you say, "Uhm, I told that lawyer it wouldn't
15 make a difference but it may." It's very important that you
16 can -- that you can listen to this evidence and not be swayed
17 by any bias or prejudice associated with something that you may
18 have a different view of. Certainly, you're going to make up
19 your mind in the case, we hope you do, and you will take the
20 evidence and be swayed one way or the other, tip the scales,
21 but I think on behalf of both sides we would ask you not to tip
22 those scales based on any bias or prejudice you had with
23 respect to religious matters about which you differ.
24 Now, having said that, does everybody agree that that's
25 not going to be a problem?
00034 {11:39:19am}
01 There are several of you -- Mr. Spencer, I believe you
02 were one that said you liked to read. What do you read?
03 JUROR SPENCER: A wide range but I like fantasy.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Fiction, nonfiction?
05 JUROR SPENCER: Mostly fiction.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: You don't, as a matter of course, read
07 religious works?
08 JUROR SPENCER: No, sir.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay. There was somebody else that
10 said that they liked to read and I thought I wrote it down but
11 I'm getting old. Who --
12 JUROR HENDRICKS: I like to read.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Hendricks.
14 JUROR HENDRICKS: Mostly religious material.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: And, again, I don't want to pry here
16 but can you give me a general description with which you're
17 comfortable in describing the kinds of things that you read.
18 JUROR HENDRICKS: Well, I have one in my purse.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you be embarrassed if I asked you
20 what the title of that was?
21 JUROR HENDRICKS: No, not at all. It's Anxious For
22 Nothing. It's by a religious speaker, Joyce Meyers.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: And what is the substance? What's it
24 based on?
25 JUROR HENDRICKS: It's based a lot on scripture and
00035 {11:40:51am}
01 relying on God as a higher power and based on a lot of the King
02 James Version.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: New Testament?
04 JUROR HENDRICKS: Yeah, New Testament and Old.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Do you read religious works other than
06 those of what I'm going to call the mainstream, something that
07 may fall outside of what we consider -- might consider
08 traditional religious works?
09 JUROR HENDRICKS: I don't normally veer outside of a
10 certain area in which -- certain area or certain writers I'm
11 comfortable with.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: And, again, this is very important and
13 let me reiterate, as the Judge did a couple of times, on your
14 knowledge of the Urantia Book. If you find this to be a little
15 bit outside of the mainstream, you can assure me that it isn't
16 going to make any difference, because it is maybe out of the
17 mainstream as far as you're concerned, that's not going to make
18 any difference?
19 JUROR HENDRICKS: No, I'm having some hesitation over
20 that. I've never heard of The Urantia Book at all, never, or
21 either of the parties involved, but I would say that I would
22 have some hesitancy in that area.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: And I don't mean to probe any further
24 but can you, for the purposes of my clients and the people at
25 this table, express that hesitancy so that we can react to it?
00036 {11:42:19am}
01 JUROR HENDRICKS: I think if we're dealing with
02 copyright issues, I don't know where religion falls into that.
03 You know, I don't understand that religion would have anything
04 to do with the issues involved in a copyright. So I don't
05 feel -- I mean, even though I may not agree with The Urantia
06 Book, I don't think that I could be -- I think if we stick with
07 the issues when you're dealing with just the copyright issues,
08 you know, I may pray about what my decision should be but I
09 don't think that the religious aspect of it, that I would be
10 impartial in that area.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. You
12 said you would be partial?
13 JUROR HENDRICKS: I don't believe that I would be
14 impartial. I would not be impartial as long as we're dealing
15 with issues; we're not dealing with my religion versus someone
16 else's religion. Just the issues.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: All right. And maybe that's the way I
18 should have expressed it. This case should not be in your
19 minds about your religion that is important to you versus
20 whatever anybody else in this courtroom might feel.
21 Is your hesitancy one that you can't understand how
22 religion fits into the copyright; is that what you're trying to
23 express?
24 JUROR HENDRICKS: I'm not sure how much of this
25 religious issue is going to be brought up in dealing with just
00037 {11:43:40am}
01 copyright issues.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: All right. Well, can all of you assure
03 me that you will keep an open mind on where religion fits into
04 this with the copyright until you hear the evidence? You're
05 not going to discount it because you haven't heard it yet; is
06 that an accurate statement?
07 JUROR HENDRICKS: Yes.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: And now you're comfortable?
09 JUROR HENDRICKS: I'm comfortable.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Great.
11 Anybody else, based on the discussion I've had with
12 Ms. Hendricks, is there anything about that discussion that
13 raised in your mind a question about whether you can be fair
14 and impartial here?
15 Pass the jury. Thank you, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Hill?
17 MR. HILL: Thank you, Your Honor.
18 Good morning, just barely. I'm Steve Hill. I represent
19 Urantia Foundation. I want to ask just a couple of followup
20 questions to the panel as a whole.
21 First of all, Ms. Littlepage, you mentioned you were going
22 out of town next --
23 THE COURT: Mr. Hill, I don't want to restrict you
24 too much but remember that I'm very hard of hearing.
25 MR. HILL: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'll back up
00038 {11:44:49am}
01 so that -- There we go. Is that better?
02 THE COURT: That's better.
03 MR. HILL: You mentioned that you are going out of
04 town next week for a test; is that correct?
05 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Yes, sir.
06 MR. HILL: When does that occur?
07 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: I'll be leaving next Tuesday.
08 MR. HILL: Next Tuesday?
09 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Yes, sir.
10 MR. HILL: Okay. I assume that you've already made
11 your arrangements?
12 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Yes, sir.
13 MR. HILL: It would be a tremendous inconvenience for
14 you to --
15 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: The test is paid for, the flight
16 is paid for.
17 MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you.
18 Mr. Robinson, what type of materials have you printed?
19 JUROR ROBINSON: Forms.
20 MR. HILL: Okay.
21 JUROR ROBINSON: Mainly it's just forms for clients.
22 Occasionally a brochure or handbook.
23 MR. HILL: You haven't been involved in publishing
24 the works of other people, per se?
25 JUROR ROBINSON: We have a legal department that has
00039 {11:45:36am}
01 gone through it long before we get into it. They bring us the
02 plates and we put it on the paper.
03 MR. HILL: Okay. Mr. Spencer, did you say you liked
04 computers?
05 JUROR SPENCER: Yeah.
06 MR. HILL: You use the Internet?
07 JUROR SPENCER: Yes.
08 MR. HILL: How frequently?
09 JUROR SPENCER: At least once a day to check e-mail
10 and the e-trade game.
11 MR. HILL: Is there anybody on the panel that doesn't
12 use the Internet at least once a week?
13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE JUROR: Does not?
14 MR. HILL: That does not use the Internet.
15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE JUROR: I don't even have a
16 computer.
17 MR. HILL: You don't have a computer?
18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE JUROR: No.
19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE JUROR: My wife won't let me on
20 ours.
21 MR. HILL: Okay. I have that problem. You touch the
22 wrong button and it blows up the whole house. Yes.
23 Sir?
24 JUROR MOUNCE: I don't use mine. I get it turned on
25 and I can't get it turned off.
00040 {11:46:29am}
01 MR. HILL: There's going to be an issue regarding
02 worldwide web Internet domain names. Is everybody familiar
03 with what a domain name is? No? Okay. No, Mr. Love?
04 JUROR LOVE: (JUROR SHAKES HEAD)
05 MR. HILL: Anybody else uncertain as to what an
06 Internet domain name is?
07 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE JUROR: Are we talking URLs?
08 MR. HILL: Yes.
09 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE JUROR: I understand that.
10 MR. HILL: Is there anybody who has never surfed the
11 Internet?
12 JUROR MOUNCE: I don't know the first thing about a
13 computer.
14 MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mounce.
15 More generally, many of the events that are going to be at
16 issue in this case occurred well before I was born and I
17 suspect before everybody on the panel was born. As a result,
18 there's going to be some documents in this case that are going
19 to go into evidence but they may not be discussed by any of the
20 witnesses. Is there anybody who thinks that if they're
21 impaneled on the jury, they would be inclined to decide the
22 case based only upon the witness testimony that they hear and
23 would not be willing to also look at any of the documents that
24 counsel for the respective parties point out as being important
25 in closing argument? Everyone agrees that it would be
00041 {11:47:57am}
01 important to look at the documents even if nobody has been able
02 to talk about them because nobody has personal knowledge about
03 them? Okay. Thank you.
04 Is there anyone who believes -- there's been a little bit
05 of discussion about religion and I'm not going to belabor the
06 point -- but is there anyone who believes that if you're
07 following your true-to-heart religious beliefs and those
08 beliefs tell you to do something that is otherwise not in
09 accordance with the law, that that conduct is still justified,
10 just as a general principle? Is there anyone who follows that
11 general principle?
12 JUROR SVEC: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I
13 got a little confused.
14 MR. HILL: Sure. Is there anyone who feels like --
15 I'm just going to give a for-instance. I'm not saying it has
16 anything to do with this case. Is there anyone who feels that
17 if they felt compelled to express their religious freedoms but
18 that expression were to come into conflict with other laws,
19 that it would still be okay to express their religious views in
20 the manner in which they're compelled to even if it came in
21 conflict with the law?
22 JUROR SVEC: I think that if they did that, they
23 would be responsible to the law. They might have to follow
24 their conscience but they're going to have to pay to the law.
25 MR. HILL: Thank you, Ms. Svec.
00042 {11:49:34am}
01 Was there anyone when Ms. Hendricks was discussing the
02 fact that this is a copyright and other legal issues in this
03 case, was there anyone who disagreed and felt that if there are
04 religious overtones in this case, they might actually tend to
05 factor in the religious overtones in addition to the law as the
06 Judge gives it to you in the case?
07 I don't get the benefit of going first in this case.
08 We're the defendant, even though we do have some claims in the
09 case. Is there anyone who thinks that they would not have the
10 ability to wait until you've heard all of the evidence and the
11 closing arguments of counsel in this case before making up your
12 mind as to which side you believe is right or wrong under the
13 law as the Judge gives it to you? Anybody think they can't
14 wait and hear both sides? Thank you.
15 Mr. Love, you were involved in military justice, I thought
16 you said?
17 JUROR LOVE: I worked in court martials, boards.
18 MR. HILL: Did you spend time in court martial
19 proceedings?
20 JUROR LOVE: Yes.
21 MR. HILL: What role did you play in those
22 proceedings?
23 JUROR LOVE: Very little court but mostly in typing
24 specifications and charges and interviewing the clients or the
25 people brought in for the articles, whichever article it was.
00043 {11:51:11am}
01 Went over psychology reports.
02 MR. HILL: Is there anyone on the panel that has
03 never gone through the process of buying a home? That's
04 understandable.
05 Thank you, Judge. I don't think I have anything else.
06 Appreciate your time.
07 THE COURT: Ms. Littlepage mentioned that she was --
08 you have a trip planned a week from today; is that correct?
09 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Yes.
10 THE COURT: And you're involved in a commitment in
11 that regard. How long would you anticipate being gone?
12 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Through that following Sunday.
13 THE COURT: To the following Sunday.
14 JUROR LITTLEPAGE: Yes.
15 THE COURT: We can't ever really tell exactly how
16 long a case is going to take but it may well extend beyond
17 that. We're not certain. It may end this week but it could
18 very well extend over into Monday or Tuesday of next week.
19 Would that create any problems for any -- other than
20 Ms. Littlepage, do any of you have any difficulty with the
21 possibility that this case might require you to be in
22 attendance through a portion of next week?
23 All right. You're Ms. Spencer?
24 JUROR GAULT: Ms. Gault.
25 THE COURT: Pardon?
00044 {11:52:45am}
01 JUROR GAULT: Amelia Gault.
02 THE COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Gault. Tell me what your
03 problem is.
04 JUROR GAULT: My daughter actually has a doctor's
05 appointment today at 1:45. I could reschedule that. She's
06 going to be fitted for a helmet. So if I couldn't do it today,
07 I would have to do it tomorrow or the next day.
08 THE COURT: Okay. Aside and apart from these two
09 ladies, do any of you have any difficulty?
10 May I see counsel at the bench.
11 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
12 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
13 THE COURT: You waive for cause?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: We have no challenge for cause.
15 THE COURT: Pardon?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: We have no --
17 THE COURT: No challenge for cause.
18 You waive for cause?
19 MR. HILL: Yes.
20 THE COURT: All right. What do you want to do about
21 these two?
22 MR. ABOWITZ: I think you should let them go. I
23 don't think Ms. Littlepage, that that would be a problem if we
24 got to next Tuesday and she wasn't out of here.
25 THE COURT: What are you suggesting with regard to
00045 {11:53:53am}
01 her? That I excuse her?
02 MR. ABOWITZ: That you excuse the juror.
03 THE COURT: Do you agree?
04 MR. HILL: No objection.
05 THE COURT: And what about -- is it Ms. Gault?
06 MR. ABOWITZ: I didn't understand about the helmet.
07 THE COURT: She has an appointment that she's either
08 going to have to do today, which would require her to be gone
09 this afternoon, or she's going to do it tomorrow or the next
10 day. It had to do with a medical appointment for her daughter.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: I'd ask the Court to excuse her as
12 well.
13 THE COURT: Excuse her as well?
14 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
15 THE COURT: All right. Now then, -- let's excuse
16 them and I'll call a couple more right quick to see and then
17 you'll both have your three peremptory challenges left. All
18 right.
19 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
20 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
21 THE COURT: Ms. Littlepage and Ms. Gault, the
22 attorneys and the Court have agreed that you will be excused to
23 not interfere with the conflict that you've outlined. You'll
24 be excused. You might go back by the jury assembly room and
25 turn in your badges and explain to them that you've been
00046 {11:54:51am}
01 excused, Ms. Littlepage, because you'll have to be gone next
02 week and that you have an appointment this afternoon that you
03 have. You'll be excused at this time and we'll call two other
04 jurors to take your place.
05 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Glenna Rae Guinn. Glenna
06 Guinn?
07 JUROR GUINN: It's Guinn.
08 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Nita Annesley?
09 JUROR ANNESLEY: It's Annesley.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Mrs. Guinn and Mrs. Annesley, were
11 you able to hear all of the questions that I asked and that the
12 attorneys asked and all of the answers that were given by the
13 jurors in the jury box to those questions?
14 JUROR ANNESLEY: (JUROR NODS HEAD)
15 JUROR GUINN: (JUROR NODS HEAD)
16 THE COURT: If I asked each of you those same
17 questions, would your answers be in any way substantially
18 different from the answers given by these jurors in here?
19 Anything you want to call to the Court's attention about your
20 ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?
21 First, Ms. Guinn.
22 JUROR GUINN: No, sir.
23 THE COURT: Do you have any reason to believe you
24 couldn't serve fairly and impartially in this case?
25 JUROR GUINN: No, sir.
00047 {11:56:37am}
01 THE COURT: And Ms. Annesley?
02 JUROR ANNESLEY: Well, I've read the book and I've
03 read quite a few religious books and I think it would be a
04 problem as far as my religious beliefs.
05 THE COURT: Because of your religious beliefs?
06 You'll be excused then, Ms. Annesley. You can return to the
07 jury assembly room and advise the jury clerk.
08 JUROR ANNESLEY: All right. Thank you.
09 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Drew Flowers.
10 THE COURT: Mr. Flowers, were you able to hear all of
11 the questions and answers?
12 JUROR FLOWERS: Yes, sir.
13 THE COURT: Would your answers be the same or
14 substantially the same?
15 JUROR FLOWERS: (JUROR NODS HEAD)
16 THE COURT: Do you know of any reason why you could
17 not be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
18 JUROR FLOWERS: No.
19 THE COURT: If selected, would you serve fairly and
20 impartially?
21 JUROR FLOWERS: Yes, sir.
22 THE COURT: All right. I'll call on, first,
23 Ms. Guinn. Please stand and give us a little information about
24 yourself.
25 JUROR GUINN: I was born and raised in Oklahoma
00048 {11:57:44am}
01 City. I'm married and have two children. I'm retired. I
02 graduated high school. My husband is retired. Right now we're
03 taking care of a granddaughter. We like to travel, when
04 possible. And we just kind of take care of family at the
05 present time.
06 THE COURT: Mr. Flowers?
07 JUROR FLOWERS: I was born and raised in Oklahoma
08 City. I graduated in 1997 from West Moore High School. I just
09 graduated in December from Southwestern Oklahoma State
10 University, a bachelor's in health administration. I currently
11 work for OU physicians at the OU Health Science Center. And I
12 start back in the fall. And I'm single.
13 THE COURT: Thank you.
14 Mr. Abowitz, did you wish to ask either of these
15 prospective jurors any additional questions?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: May I address from here, Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Sure, sure.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Mr. Flowers, what is your graduate
19 program?
20 JUROR FLOWERS: Health administration.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Were you able to hear, you and
22 Ms. Guinn, able to hear the questions I posed to the other
23 members of the jury?
24 JUROR FLOWERS: Yes.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: And that would make no difference in
00049 {11:59:00am}
01 your deliberations?
02 JUROR FLOWERS: No.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Ms. Guinn?
04 JUROR GUINN: No, sir.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
06 THE COURT: Mr. Hill?
07 MR. HILL: Did either of you -- you can just indicate
08 by raising your hand -- did either of you disagree with the
09 statement that Ms. Svec made when she said that if you follow
10 your conscience and there are legal repercussions, there have
11 to be -- you have to live with the repercussions? Did either
12 of you disagree with that statement when you heard it?
13 JUROR GUINN: (JUROR SHAKES HEAD)
14 JUROR FLOWERS: (JUROR SHAKES HEAD)
15 MR. HILL: Nothing else, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: May I see counsel at the bench, please.
17 Bring your boards with you.
18 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
19 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
20 THE COURT: Pass for cause?
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
22 THE COURT: Pass for cause?
23 MR. HILL: Pass.
24 THE COURT: All right. We'll exercise peremptory
25 challenges as follows: The plaintiff will exercise their first
00050 {12:00:14pm}
01 peremptory, then the defendant, so forth. I think the way
02 you'll have to do it is just indicate to me so I can X them
03 off.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you give us about 10 seconds?
05 THE COURT: Sure.
06 (PAUSE)
07 (PLAINTIFF INDICATES JUROR WRIGHT)
08 MR. HILL: Who is that? I'm sorry.
09 THE COURT: This is a little confusing because this
10 lady --
11 MR. HILL: Yeah.
12 (DEFENDANT INDICATES JUROR LOVE)
13 THE COURT: Your second, counselor.
14 Love was their first.
15 (PLAINTIFF INDICATES JUROR SVEC)
16 THE COURT: Your second, counsel.
17 (DEFENDANT INDICATES JUROR BALES)
18 THE COURT: Your third and last, counselor.
19 Hendricks is seated the second one. Ray is at the end
20 here.
21 (PLAINTIFF INDICATES JUROR RAY)
22 THE COURT: Your third and last, counselor.
23 (DEFENDANT INDICATES JUROR MOUNCE)
24 THE COURT: Got that?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
00051 {12:02:51pm}
01 THE COURT: You gentlemen may be seated.
02 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
03 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
04 THE COURT: The following named jurors together with
05 the remaining members of the jury pool will be excused. You
06 may step down and return to the jury assembly room for further
07 instructions. Darrell Mounce, Richard Bales, Freddie Wright,
08 Elaine Svec, Marsha Ray, and -- let's see -- and William Henry
09 Love. Those six may step down.
10 Thank you for your willingness to serve as jurors in this
11 case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
12 I'll ask the remaining members of the jury pool to please
13 stand and be sworn as jurors in this case that you've been
14 selected.
15 (JURORS SWORN)
16 THE COURT: Just move down to this end of the jury
17 box.
18 Ladies and gentlemen, now that you've been -- well, I'll
19 wait until you're seated. Be seated, please.
20 Now that you've been selected as jurors in this case, you
21 will, as I mentioned earlier, be a fellow judge with me in this
22 case. You'll serve collectively to determine what the facts
23 are in this case. You'll listen to the evidence. Any
24 documents that are admitted will be available for your
25 consideration to arrive at a conclusion as to what the facts
00052 {12:04:49pm}
01 are.
02 I will determine and explain to you, as best I can, at the
03 conclusion of the trial what the law is in this case that
04 you're to apply to the facts that you determine to exist, but
05 it will be your job to listen to the witnesses and determine
06 credibility or believability and decide what -- decide the
07 disputes of facts and apply the law.
08 Now, I want to ask you to keep an open mind. Don't make
09 up your mind with regard to what the facts are until you've
10 heard all of the evidence in the case and the Court's
11 instructions with regard to the law and go to the jury
12 deliberation room and begin your deliberation. Don't discuss
13 this case, not even among yourselves, but certainly with no one
14 else until such time as it goes into the jury deliberation with
15 you after you've been sworn and received the Court's
16 instructions.
17 Now then, don't read or examine anything outside the
18 record in this case to help you determine the facts because
19 evidence -- the time-honored system of justice is that evidence
20 comes under oath and subject to cross-examination and that
21 establishes the safeguards that evidence has to be considered
22 properly by you. So, don't read anything in the newspaper,
23 don't draw any conclusions from any television programs or
24 anything. As a matter of fact, if any of them attempt to in
25 any way mention this lawsuit, it's not very likely but it
00053 {12:06:20pm}
01 might, just don't pay any attention to it and don't listen to
02 it, and then make up your mind based upon the evidence you hear
03 here in open court.
04 Now, we'll proceed as follows in this case. We're going
05 to take a recess for lunch. As soon as you get back, we'll
06 start. And I think I'll wait until that time to explain the
07 order of the arguments and the presentation of evidence. Just
08 remember that you'll be excused until 1:15. Be back in the
09 jury assembly room at 1:15. My bailiff will come pick you up
10 at that time and bring you back into the courtroom and we'll
11 try to resume very shortly thereafter.
12 Would everyone please stand and remain standing until the
13 jurors clear the courtroom. You may lead the way out, if you
14 will, Mr. Flowers.
15 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
16 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
17 THE COURT: Court is in recess. Thank you,
18 gentlemen.
19 (THE LUNCHEON RECESS WAS TAKEN)
20
00054 { 1:14:23pm}
01 AFTERNOON SESSION
02 TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2001
03 ---------------------------------------------------------------
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE JUDGE'S
05 CHAMBERS AND OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: Okay. Anil mentioned something that
07 probably should just go in the record somewhere, that the
08 parties have agreed that any documents not objected to,
09 exhibits not objected to, are admitted without objection; is
10 that correct?
11 MR. HILL: That's fine with us. I thought we were
12 going in that direction and this morning --
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Ross had the conversation with Steve on
14 that. He's right -- he was right behind me.
15 MR. HILL: Ross told me that their exhibits that are
16 unobjected to, they're not willing to tender them into
17 evidence. So, --
18 THE COURT: Okay. We'll take that up when Ross gets
19 here.
20 I want to clarify one thing before I explain to the jury.
21 We're going to take up the question of who is the author of The
22 Urantia Book as the first submission to the jury before some of
23 the other submissions; right?
24 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
25 THE COURT: I wanted to explain to them. Do you all
00055 { 1:33:50pm}
01 want to -- Are you going to limit your opening arguments, this
02 phase of the opening arguments, to the authorship or do you
03 want to do the whole nine yards and then limit your evidence or
04 somewhat restrict your evidence until all the evidence on
05 authorship is in and then instruct and argue on that? How do
06 you all want me to explain it to the jury about this?
07 MR. HILL: Well, I actually thought that we were --
08 that what we were going to do was make our openings but not
09 argue the law, of course. Just make our openings and --
10 THE COURT: Total openings.
11 MR. HILL: Each side produce their side of the case
12 and then we'd send the jury out -- we'd do closing argument on
13 just the authorship and send the jury back and then close --
14 THE COURT: Okay. Now, you didn't have any idea of
15 having subsequent evidence after the issue of authorship was
16 decided?
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, a major problem is we
18 have out-of-town witnesses --
19 THE COURT: Pardon?
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: A major problem is we have out-of-
21 town witnesses who will be coming in throughout the trial
22 process.
23 THE COURT: Right.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: And, frankly, each of them has
25 evidence on numerous items, and if we limit --
00056 { 1:33:55pm}
01 THE COURT: So you want to put it all on? Okay.
02 MR. HILL: Just put all the evidence in and argue at
03 the end.
04 THE COURT: We'll just put all the evidence on and
05 then argue and instruct on authorship, and then, depending on
06 what their answer to that interrogatory is, then we'll instruct
07 and argue on the rest of it, or will there be additional
08 evidence after that?
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Can we hold it open on the additional
10 evidence?
11 THE COURT: Huh?
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Can we hold it open on the additional
13 evidence?
14 THE COURT: Well, that's what I want -- we can do it
15 now, if you decide you want to, but I think we have to have a
16 rule of understanding how we're going to do it. The way I
17 understand it, you're proposing we just put your case on but
18 submit on one issue only first and then after that's answered,
19 then just continue argument and instruction with regard to the
20 other issue; is that right?
21 MR. HILL: That's how I understood it, yes.
22 THE COURT: So, I don't need to explain that to them
23 at this time?
24 MR. HILL: I don't think so.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
00057 { 1:33:58pm}
01 MR. HILL: But we do want to go ahead and put our
02 stipulation with regard to Urantia Foundation's exhibits on the
03 record and also stipulate to the -- to drop the motion to quash
04 that was filed.
05 THE COURT: All right. Why don't you make that
06 record right now.
07 MR. HILL: Okay. Urantia Foundation is withdrawing
08 its motion to quash the trial subpoena of Richard Keeler, and
09 counsel of the parties have reached a stipulation that Urantia
10 Foundation exhibits 1-A, 1-B, 2, 3-A, 3-B, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D,
11 4-E, 5, 8, 16, 21, 23, 28, 30, 31-A through D, 36, 93, 94,
12 99-B, 99-C, 100-B, 100-C, 114-A through C, and 116 are tendered
13 in.
14 MR. PLOURDE: Let me just kind of clarify a little
15 bit. First of all, you've represented to me -- I haven't had a
16 chance to double check -- but you represented those are all the
17 ones we had no objection to in the pretrial order?
18 MR. HILL: This is true.
19 MR. PLOURDE: Based on that, I have no reason to
20 doubt that's correct. Based on that, we don't have any
21 objection to those being offered into evidence. It was a
22 little bit of a trade-off. The offer was that all of our
23 exhibits that weren't objected to would be submitted into
24 evidence except that we have several that they have not
25 objected to that we may not want to offer, and they prefer not
00058 { 1:34:04pm}
01 to have them go into evidence. So the ones that they have
02 objected to -- I think the deal is that the ones that you have
03 not objected to that we offer will be put into evidence.
04 THE COURT: Admitted without objection then; is that
05 correct?
06 MR. HILL: We're putting ours into evidence. We
07 reserve the right in the pretrial order to use certain of their
08 exhibits. We got their exhibits before we had to do our own.
09 I'm interested to hear how the Court is going to take up the
10 matter of their exhibits submitted to which we didn't file any
11 objections provided that --
12 THE COURT: Well, if you didn't object to them,
13 they'll be admissible if they offer them. Now then, if you
14 offer them, is that what you're asking, what's going to happen?
15 MR. HILL: Yes.
16 THE COURT: If you offer them but you didn't object?
17 Did you make a statement in your pretrial statement that all
18 exhibits offered by the defendant as well?
19 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
20 THE COURT: They'll be admitted then.
21 MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you, Judge.
22 THE COURT: If you listed them -- If you listed
23 them, even though you elect not to offer them, you can't object
24 to them if they offer those as well. By listing them, you
25 don't necessarily -- I mean, that doesn't amount to any kind of
00059 { 1:34:08pm}
01 an objection to them. Any exhibit not objected to will go in.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: We objected to their exhibits as
03 they've listed them and those exhibits -- it would seem to me
04 that those objections are still good.
05 MR. HILL: Well, that's fine, but the exhibits -- I
06 mean, I'm not trying to --
07 THE COURT: Did you object to them specifically?
08 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
09 THE COURT: The ones -- including the ones you had
10 offered?
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
12 MR. HILL: No, that's not true.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
14 MR. PLOURDE: A lot of them, they also listed, and
15 when they listed them, we objected to them. So we have one --
16 THE COURT: Well, you've got a deal here where you've
17 offered them or listed them?
18 MR. PLOURDE: We listed them.
19 THE COURT: And then you've objected to them when
20 they offered them?
21 MR. PLOURDE: Well, and let me tell you why, Judge.
22 You know, as soon as counsel finishes laughing, let me tell you
23 why.
24 THE COURT: Well, it isn't just counsel laughing.
25 MR. PLOURDE: Okay, Judge. Let me try to overcome
00060 { 1:34:11pm}
01 your skepticism. Judge, documents that they produced or that
02 their people wrote are admissions, that they are admissible
03 against them. If we didn't write them, they're not admissible
04 against us so we get to use them if we want to but they can't
05 offer them themselves because they're out-of-court statements.
06 So, you know, whereas we can rely on an exception to the
07 hearsay rule, they can't. It's those kinds of --
08 THE COURT: Again, I'm asking: Did you specifically
09 make an objection to any of the exhibits they've listed,
10 including the ones that you had offered? If they incorporated
11 your list of the ones that you've offered, what you should have
12 said, Ross, is, "I object to even those ones we've listed that
13 are included if they're offered on their behalf," and you
14 didn't do that.
15 MR. PLOURDE: Well, Judge, let me tell you, there are
16 a couple in there that they listed the same exact exhibit.
17 They put it in their book and I objected to it.
18 THE COURT: You objected to it from their standpoint?
19 Okay.
20 MR. PLOURDE: That's right. And we also had it and
21 they may or may not have objected to it. But, in any event,
22 you know, we'll just withdraw them.
23 THE COURT: What kind of exhibits? What are we
24 talking about here?
25 MR. PLOURDE: Well, for instance, that History of The
00061 { 1:34:15pm}
01 Urantia Movement was supposedly -- you know, they say it was
02 authored by William Sadler. Well, William Sadler is their
03 predecessor in interest and anything that he would say we
04 believe is an admission.
05 THE COURT: Okay.
06 MR. PLOURDE: And, so, we could get it in against
07 them. Now, we don't think it can come in against us because it
08 was their guy's out-of-court statement. They listed it, we
09 listed it, we objected to theirs, and they didn't object to
10 ours, and so now they want to get it in.
11 MR. HILL: Judge, they put a different History of The
12 Urantia Movement document than the ones that we put in. To be
13 candid, they put in one that was attached to a deposition in
14 the Maaherra case. It is not the same as the documents that we
15 put in. We did not tender Forsythe exhibit -- Forsythe
16 deposition exhibit 41, and they did. We don't have any
17 objection to it. They didn't reserve an objection to it. They
18 also put in another history document. Their exhibit 1 is not
19 an exhibit that we put in but we certainly don't have any
20 objection to it.
21 THE COURT: All right. Let me try to get back to
22 ground zero. Each of you have the right to object to any
23 exhibit that's being offered by the other side. Now, you waive
24 that right if you don't object -- list your objection. Both
25 sides agree with that?
00062 { 1:34:20pm}
01 MR. HILL: Agreed.
02 THE COURT: You waive that right if you haven't
03 objected to it. Now then, if you're going to offer an
04 exhibit -- now, what are you stipulating to then if different
05 from that? I thought you were saying that both sides
06 stipulated that all the documents not objected to could be
07 admitted. Is that right or not?
08 MR. PLOURDE: That's right, Your Honor, with the
09 exception that the documents that we listed that they haven't
10 objected to, we want to reserve the right --
11 THE COURT: Okay. Now, on those -- in those, when
12 you offer them, consider them their right to be heard arguing
13 as to whether or not they should be admitted.
14 MR. HILL: That's fine, Judge.
15 THE COURT: I'm not going to make a general ruling.
16 MR. HILL: That's fine, Judge. We'll just take them
17 one at a time.
18 THE COURT: Take them one at a time.
19 All right. What else?
20 Let's go to work.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: The thing I wanted to address with you,
22 Judge, is does the Court have a view of whether you can give
23 the jury a brief preliminary instruction on copyright law so
24 that they will know where the evidence that we will relate to
25 in opening statement fits into the framework? Otherwise, it
00063 { 1:34:23pm}
01 would seem to me that for us to make a presentation that has
02 some continuity, that we would have to do that, and I know how
03 you feel about the lawyers talking about the law in opening
04 statement.
05 THE COURT: Well, I am not prepared to preliminarily
06 instruct the jury on copyright law but I'll allow you all some
07 leeway with the admonition -- you ought to say, "Now, keep in
08 mind that the Judge is going to instruct you with regard to
09 what the law is. And if there's any conflict between what I
10 say and what he says, keep in mind that you're to accept the
11 law as announced by the Court. But I'm telling you that with
12 regard to some general principles and so forth."
13 MR. ABOWITZ: That's good.
14 THE COURT: Fair enough?
15 MR. HILL: Yeah. I mean --
16 THE COURT: Well, I probably should have --
17 MR. HILL: How far are we going to go?
18 THE COURT: Well, --
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, I'm going to restrict it but I
20 think it's absolutely essential that they have some framework
21 within which to --
22 THE COURT: Well, If you had suggested it, I might
23 have prepared a brief summary, preliminary instruction with
24 regard to it, but I haven't done it at this point. All right?
25 Here we go.
00064 { 1:35:09pm}
01 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF
02 THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
03 THE COURT: Keep your seat.
04 Refresh my memory. What kind of time limit did we agree
05 on for opening statement?
06 MR. HILL: 30 minutes, Judge.
07 THE COURT: That's what I thought. Is that your
08 understanding?
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
10 THE COURT: You don't have to take all of it.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, Debbie Crabb is with my
12 office. May she sit at counsel table to assist me?
13 THE COURT: Sure. You all have no objection, do you?
14 MR. HILL: No, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Sure.
16 MR. HILL: Your Honor, can we approach?
17 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
18 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
19 MR. HILL: We --
20 THE COURT: Go ahead. The jury is not here yet.
21 MR. HILL: We have a chronology in time line fashion.
22 I don't think it's argumentative but it does -- and I think it
23 would be useful in opening.
24 THE COURT: Outlining your opening?
25 MR. HILL: To lay out the time and chronology.
00065 { 1:38:03pm}
01 THE COURT: Did you show it to him?
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Yeah. We object to it on the basis it
03 is argumentative and they're going to have a tough time proving
04 some of that stuff.
05 THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule the objection and
06 let you use it, understanding that it's not necessarily an
07 exhibit; it's simply an outline of the evidence that you hope
08 to present.
09 MR. HILL: We're not tendering it.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: May that statement be made to the jury?
11 THE COURT: Absolutely. When you start to use it,
12 say, "This is not evidence in the case. This is an outline of
13 the evidence that we hope to present."
14 MR. HILL: Okay.
15 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
16 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
17 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
18 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me inquire if
19 anything occurred during the lunch hour that would in any way
20 prevent you from continuing to serve as fair and impartial
21 jurors in this case?
22 I gather not.
23 Now, let me tell you that we're ready to present this
24 case. The first thing you'll hear is the opening statements of
25 the attorneys. Now, the opening statements of the attorneys
00066 { 1:42:40pm}
01 are not evidence in the case. Evidence comes to you in the
02 form of sworn testimony from the witness stand and in the form
03 of documents, which we have a lot of in this case for you to
04 consider and weigh. But the attorneys are allowed to make
05 statements in opening in order to help you -- to suggest what
06 evidence they hope to present and hope to use. That doesn't
07 prevent the Court from ruling contrary to some of their offers,
08 and some of it may not come in, but they're allowed to outline
09 what evidence they hope to present to you so that you might
10 better follow and understand that evidence as it comes on from
11 the witness stand.
12 Remember that what the attorneys say is not evidence in
13 the case. It's what you hear from the documents or from the
14 witness stand that is evidence for you to consider.
15 Now, the attorneys will be allowed some leeway in
16 outlining what they think the law is with regard to that, and I
17 will instruct you. Keep in mind that when I do instruct you,
18 if there's any confusion or conflict in your mind between what
19 you understand me to say and what they say, keep in mind that
20 you're to follow the instructions of the Court. What I say is
21 controlling with regard to the law and not what the attorneys
22 may have said in opening or closing arguments and so forth.
23 Now then, after both sides have had an opportunity to
24 outline their evidence or make their opening statement, then
25 the plaintiff will call their witnesses in chief subject to
00067 { 1:44:14pm}
01 cross-examination by the defendant.
02 After the plaintiff has completed their case and rested,
03 as they say, then the defendant will be allowed to offer
04 witnesses and documents in support of their case in chief. Not
05 only are there cases in chief, we have a claim by the plaintiff
06 in this case against the defendant and the defendant defends
07 against that. We also have a claim by the defendant against
08 the plaintiff, what we call a counterclaim or a counter
09 movement against the plaintiff, and that plaintiff denies
10 that. So the plaintiff and the defendant are both aggressors
11 and defense people in a certain sense of the word and you have
12 to keep that in mind.
13 At any rate, after the defendant has presented their
14 evidence, subject to cross-examination by the plaintiff, then
15 both sides rest eventually, and at the end of that time, the
16 attorneys will be allowed again to address you in what's known
17 as closing arguments. Again, not evidence in the case, but to
18 suggest to you what they hope or believe that you should deduce
19 from the evidence that you've heard. In other words, suggest
20 facts that they hope you will conclude from the evidence that
21 you have heard. You're not bound by their conclusions or their
22 suggestions. Indeed, it's your own conclusions and your own
23 finding with regard to the facts that control in this case
24 coupled with the law that the Court gives you to apply to those
25 facts that you determine to exist.
00068 { 1:45:53pm}
01 With that brief explanation, I'll call on counsel for the
02 plaintiff. Mr. Abowitz will make no more than a 30-minute
03 opening statement.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
05 Before we do that, may I introduce Debbie Crabb to the
06 ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
07 THE COURT: You may indeed.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: As you will see, she's here to keep me
09 from fumbling around with the books and she usually does a
10 pretty good job.
11 May I proceed?
12 THE COURT: You may.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Ladies and gentlemen, as the Court
14 said, generally these opening statements are restricted to the
15 lawyer's statements about what the lawyer believes the evidence
16 will show on behalf of his or her client. In this instance, it
17 will be a little bit different because I will give you what I
18 believe to be an accurate statement of the law so you can put
19 these facts as you hear them in the context of the law that I
20 anticipate the Court will give you at the appropriate time in
21 this case.
22 As the Court said, and I want to be -- I want to repeat it
23 because it bears repeating, although I believe that the
24 statement is accurate, if at the end of the day when you get
25 those instructions and the Court's version is different than
00069 { 1:47:21pm}
01 you recall what I gave you, you should disregard my statement
02 of the law and adopt the one that the Court gives you because
03 that will be the one that will govern your deliberations in
04 this case. In other words, you're going to have to make your
05 mind up about the facts and you're going to have to determine
06 and analyze how those facts fit within the frame work of the
07 legal instructions that the Court gives you.
08 With that, I will tell you that this is kind of a PBS
09 mystery. Let me start out that way. This story begins back at
10 the early part of the 1900s. The story involves a
11 psychiatrist, a well-known, well-respected psychiatrist in
12 Chicago, Illinois. That gentleman's name, the evidence will
13 be, was Dr. William Sadler. Dr. Sadler had a specialty of
14 treating people with psychiatric disorders.
15 The evidence in the case is that at some point in time,
16 early in the last century, a lady brings her husband to see
17 Dr. Sadler and her husband is afflicted with some disturbance
18 that she hopes Dr. Sadler will be able to straighten out.
19 Dr. Sadler takes this patient and addresses, we believe, his
20 psychological or psychiatric ailment.
21 The evidence is, insofar as it concerns this case, is that
22 that man, that patient, and you will hear that person be
23 referred to as "patient" or "subject" is, the evidence will
24 reveal to you, the author of The Urantia Book.
25 This is the book (INDICATING). It is over 2,000 pages
00070 { 1:50:04pm}
01 long. As the Court advised you this morning, it was published
02 in 1955, long after this patient first went to see Dr. Sadler.
03 The evidence in the case, somewhat astonishingly, is that
04 this person, this patient, hand wrote all of this book, and
05 what he wrote out in longhand ended up being this book without
06 change. There is nothing in this book, the evidence is, that
07 he didn't write out in longhand.
08 The interesting part of this is that the interests of
09 Dr. Sadler eventually become The Urantia Foundation. And the
10 question in this case is going to be: Who was the author of
11 the book? The evidence is -- the mystery comes into play
12 because they would never reveal who this patient was. The
13 evidence is that the people associated with Dr. Sadler took an
14 oath to keep that secret and to keep the origins of this book
15 under wraps.
16 The evidence is that this book was completed in two
17 sections. It contains four sections; the first three were
18 completed in 1935, and the last one, which is essentially the
19 part of the book published by The Michael Foundation, Jesus - A
20 New Revelation, was finished in 1936.
21 The evidence is that there was an assignment, a legal
22 giving by the patient to Dr. Sadler of his rights created by
23 his authorship and organization in longhand of this book to
24 Dr. Sadler. The evidence is, under the cloak of secrecy, there
25 is no assignment in writing. It was purported to be a verbal
00071 { 1:53:05pm}
01 assignment. There is no record and there is no evidence of
02 what condition this patient suffered from, whether this patient
03 could have given Dr. Sadler an assignment and whether or not
04 this patient was fully advised of what he was doing, if indeed
05 he made this assignment.
06 The Urantia Foundation, through this series of evolutions,
07 gets a copyright on this book and says to the United States
08 copyright office, "We are the author of this book and we got an
09 assignment." That copyright expired and The Urantia Foundation
10 had to renew the copyright in 1983. I anticipate that the
11 Judge will instruct you, under the copyright law, that if this
12 patient actually assigned his right in this book to The Urantia
13 Foundation, that only that patient or that patient's heirs
14 would qualify to apply for renewal.
15 The evidence in the case is that the patient died. The
16 evidence is nobody knows when he died, but the evidence appears
17 to be fairly strong that he was dead before 1983, which would
18 leave it to his heirs to renew this copyright.
19 The evidence is that his heirs did not renew the
20 copyright. The evidence is the same people who first went to
21 the copyright office and said, "Hey, we're the author of this
22 book," now go to the copyright office and say, "We are the
23 proprietor of this book and it's a work for hire." The
24 evidence is the reason they did that is that they couldn't have
25 renewed the copyright if they hadn't said that. And this is a
00072 { 1:55:42pm}
01 significant change in their position. The evidence is there is
02 no evidence that anybody was paid to do this. The evidence is
03 there is no evidence that anybody was in a situation that could
04 have been classified as one that would give rise to the
05 classification of work for hire. But they did it, nonetheless.
06 One of the issues in this case is that The Michael
07 Foundation and Mr. McMullan challenged the validity not only of
08 the first copyright but the second copyright.
09 Now, what makes this even more interesting is the evidence
10 will be that this is not the only lawsuit that has taken place
11 over the validity of these copyrights. There was a case that
12 preceded, that happened before the copyright renewal, and what
13 was the position that Urantia Foundation took in that case?
14 The position was not that it was a work for hire because they
15 didn't have to go there yet.
16 Now, there's litigation, additional litigation, after the
17 copyright renewal. Do they take the position of work for hire
18 in that case, the principal position they take? Do they take
19 the position that they have been assigned the rights of the
20 patient? They take another position. They now say, in that
21 litigation, and the evidence will be that this book was
22 authored by spiritual beings and that gives rise to a different
23 impact in the copyright law.
24 The evidence is they have taken several significant,
25 different, unreconcilable positions about why they're entitled
00073 { 1:58:18pm}
01 to a copyright. We will bring all that evidence to your
02 attention and you will have to determine what you make of that
03 in the context of the law.
04 Now, the evidence on behalf of The Michael Foundation is
05 simple. Back at the beginning, the first position that these
06 people took was the patient was the originator and author of
07 the book; the patient was the only one, other than his heirs,
08 that had the right to renew the copyright in 1983. The
09 evidence is, as I said earlier, the patient -- neither the
10 patient nor the patient's heirs appeared at the copyright
11 office and said, "We want to renew this," nor did Urantia
12 Foundation show up at the copyright office and say, "Look, we
13 have a written assignment" -- which would have been necessary
14 to do this -- "from either the patient or the patient's heirs
15 to renew this." They didn't do that. The evidence, I submit
16 to you, leads to the conclusion that that copyright is invalid.
17 Now, there are other issues that are subsumed in this
18 case, if you will, contained in it. There is an issue about
19 what this book is technically, whether it is a compilation.
20 This book, as I've shown it to you, contains what I'm going to
21 call the original manuscript, the original papers as written
22 out in longhand by the patient which gave rise to his right to
23 the copyright. And there is, in the beginning, the contents of
24 the book, and the evidence is that I believe the Court will
25 instruct you that you're not to consider that. Mr. Sadler --
00074 { 2:00:43pm}
01 Dr. Sadler's son, Bill Sadler, Jr., put that together, and the
02 evidence is clear that this first part, the contents of the
03 book, has nothing to do with the text of the book.
04 The evidence is, on behalf of The Michael Foundation, that
05 in the technical terms of the law, that it is not a
06 compilation, it's not an assemblage, and it is not a composite
07 work. The evidence is that those are the other two exceptions
08 along with the work for hire that The Urantia Foundation --
09 under which The Urantia Foundation would be entitled to the
10 copyright.
11 The evidence is clear, I submit to you, and it will be
12 presented to you, that that is not the case here. It is not a
13 compilation; it is not an encyclopedia; it is not a composite;
14 it is not a work for hire. And under those factual situations,
15 they are not entitled to a copyright.
16 The Michael Foundation determined back during the period
17 of time of this other litigation, through a legal opinion not
18 rendered by anybody in this room, that this copyright was no
19 good. And what he did, he will tell you that this book changed
20 his life. He will tell you that this book is the basis of his
21 daily life, it is his religion. He will tell you that he felt
22 that it was necessary to proselytize his religion by putting
23 out the fourth portion of this book. He did so. It's called
24 Jesus - A New Revelation.
25 The only respect in which it is different from what's in
00075 { 2:03:11pm}
01 this book is the cover, which has a wonderful painting that
02 hangs in a museum in Scotland; the back of the book; and an
03 index; an appendix that is many pages long. It's over 100
04 pages long.
05 The evidence is that Mr. McMullan has made this book --
06 this book, this book, his life's work and he prepared an index
07 to this book. There wasn't one before that. He has not
08 profited from it. He has not profited from this. The evidence
09 is his motives were to spread the word that's contained in this
10 book.
11 The evidence is that based upon that publication he was
12 sued in the State of Arizona. That case was thrown out on
13 legal grounds and it came back here -- or it didn't come back
14 here -- but The Michael Foundation that published this book
15 filed this lawsuit asking the Court to declare a copyright is
16 invalid and this is improper.
17 There's another issue in this lawsuit: trademarks.
18 Mr. McMullan and Michael Foundation registered Internet domain
19 names in the name of The Urantia Book, the very name of this
20 book. The evidence is going to be that The Urantia Book is not
21 a name that can be trademarked. I should say the law also will
22 be to that effect. So the effect of the trademark is you can't
23 say The Urantia Book, you can't say you're a reader of The
24 Urantia Book, you can't say you are a studier of The Urantia
25 Book, you can't say you are a serious student of The Urantia
00076 { 2:05:46pm}
01 Book as long as these people have the trademark.
02 The other point at issue is the word "Urantia." That's
03 the other domain name. "Urantia" in this book means the
04 earth. The evidence is there are many different iterations.
05 Urantian is a person that studies this book. Urantian, a
06 person that tithes to the Urantia movement, the Urantia
07 movement, the Urantia students, the Urantia church.
08 The evidence will be that Mr. McMullan, through The
09 Foundation, attempted to set up a church, the Urantia Church,
10 in Oklahoma City. For reasons other than the disputes in this
11 case, it didn't work. Kind of a personality conflict between a
12 gentleman that was asked to be the minister of the church that
13 came from Australia and the people who would attend the church
14 here in Oklahoma. Essentially, what it got down to was that
15 the Okies and Aussies didn't get together, couldn't understand
16 one another, I guess, notwithstanding the common bond of their
17 religion.
18 The evidence that will be presented in the case will
19 include statements from the records of The Urantia Foundation
20 in writing signed by officials of that organization which
21 support each and every facet of the proof I told you you would
22 be presented. One, the author was the patient. Number two, no
23 evidence of any assignment. Number three, a work for hire.
24 Number four, it's not a work for hire. Number five, it's a
25 composite. It's not a composite. Number six, something else,
00077 { 2:08:21pm}
01 and it's not something else. Number seven, ad infinitum. The
02 evidence is it comes out of their records.
03 Maybe one of the most interesting pieces of evidence in
04 this case will be an opinion from one of their lawyers about
05 this. We anticipate we will get that to you if the Judge
06 admits that evidence.
07 In conclusion, the evidence that you will be presented
08 clearly speaks to the conclusion that we believe that you will
09 reach after you hear the evidence, that, number one, they have
10 no right to a copyright, the copyright is invalid, and, as a
11 consequence, everyone that wants to spread the word contained
12 in this book can do so. Number two, that the uses of
13 Mr. McMullan and The Michael Foundation of the terms "The
14 Urantia Book" and "Urantia" are clearly, clearly fair uses of
15 that name and they should not be restricted from using it.
16 I appreciate your time and your attention and we look
17 forward to presenting this evidence to you over the next
18 several days and hope that we can keep it in a fashion that we
19 don't -- that we can be as clear and concise as we can.
20 Thank you.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Hill?
22 MR. HILL: Thank you, Your Honor.
23 Members of the jury, my name, again, is Steve Hill.
24 Urantia Foundation is a charitable trust that was founded
25 in 1950 in Chicago, Illinois. It was formed pursuant to a
00078 { 2:10:50pm}
01 declaration of trust after many of the events that Mr. Abowitz
02 told you about. There are agreements between the parties as to
03 some of the facts of this case. Both parties agree and I
04 expect will present evidence in this case to the effect that a
05 patient or a subject or a conduit, if you will, a person was
06 under observation by Dr. William Sadler, who was a prominent
07 Chicago psychiatrist. That when Dr. Sadler realized that he
08 was in touch with something that he didn't quite understand, he
09 then sought to bring in other people into the process of
10 observing this person who I'm going to refer to as the subject
11 or the conduit. And the reason is that because some of the
12 documentary evidence in this case suggests that Dr. Sadler and
13 others believed that this person was a conduit for the
14 transmission of information from celestial beings, if you
15 will. But whatever you believe about that, I would encourage
16 you to be respectful of the fact that Urantia Foundation's
17 representatives, many of whom will testify in this case,
18 believe that celestial beings are, in fact, the authors of The
19 Urantia Book. That is a statement of belief. It is not
20 evidence. I am going to encourage you, as you review the
21 evidence in this case, to take into consideration the fact that
22 much of what you're going to be seeing --
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
24 that. That's argument.
25 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
00079 { 2:12:33pm}
01 MR. HILL: Much of what you're going to be seeing is
02 documentary evidence that is reflecting what are, in fact, the
03 religious faith of the spiritual beliefs of the authors when it
04 pertains to the book.
05 That having been -- that being set aside, there are some
06 things that we don't agree about, apparently, from the way
07 Mr. Abowitz set out the facts regarding how we got The Urantia
08 Book.
09 Urantia Foundation's position is that there was some human
10 involvement and some human interaction in the process of
11 creation for The Urantia Book. There's no denying, for
12 example, that Dr. Sadler and five other people who came to be
13 known as The Contact Commission were responsible for monitoring
14 sessions with the sleeping subject, or with this subject who
15 was speaking. At some times during these sessions, one of the
16 Contact Commissioners, a woman named Emma Christensen, would
17 take down physically notes regarding the content of what the
18 subject was saying. She would then go back and type up this
19 content into manuscript -- typescript form. Those typescripts
20 eventually were shared by Dr. Sadler and the other Contact
21 Commissioners at his home in Chicago, Illinois with a larger
22 group of people that Dr. Sadler met with on Sundays. That
23 larger group of people are known as The Forum.
24 So what you have, in a nut shell, the diagram of the
25 traffic accident in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is that
00080 { 2:14:17pm}
01 you have a Contact Commission, and you have a sleeping subject,
02 who is being monitored by The Contact Commission.
03 Eventually, the evidence shows that The Contact
04 Commissioners were asking questions to the subject while he was
05 in an unconscious state. The subject then began giving
06 responsive information to these questions. Some of the
07 responsive information was given in sessions, some was given in
08 a different way, and we'll get to that in a second.
09 But in the early time in which this was occurring, Emma
10 Christensen was right there taking her notes and typing them up
11 so that the Contact Commissioners could then take the written
12 documents, show it to this larger group of people known as The
13 Forum, and solicit more and more questions from them. "What
14 should we ask the subject next?" must have been what was going
15 through the minds of these people. "How do we get more and
16 elicit more and more information?"
17 What accounts for the size of the book is the fact that
18 this process, which began in the early 1900s, didn't culminate
19 until at least the mid 1930s, and we suggest that there will be
20 evidence in the case that actually it went beyond that even
21 into the early 1940s.
22 The Contact Commission then is sort of the leader of this
23 three-ring circus, and it is a voluntary cooperative process
24 that is going on. We submit that the evidence will show that
25 no one participated in this process against his or her will.
00081 { 2:16:12pm}
01 The evidence will also show that although the conduit or
02 subject was unconscious or semi-conscious at best during these
03 sessions, nevertheless, in a conscious state he was shown these
04 papers and he was aware of their existence.
05 Now, The Contact Commission in 1941 approached a
06 publishing company known as R. R. Donnelley & Sons about taking
07 all of the manuscripts that had come by that point in time and
08 putting them together in a book form. At that point, a
09 contract was entered into by one of the Contact Commissioners,
10 a man named Wilfred Kellogg, who was a cousin of Dr. Sadler's
11 wife. Wilfred Kellogg entered into this contract in 1941. The
12 funds that paid for the contract were raised by The Forum and
13 The Contact Commission.
14 Furthermore, in 1932, during the middle of this voluntary
15 process, the evidence shows that The Contact Commission was
16 writing and engaging in correspondence with the United States
17 Copyright Office about how to go about copyrighting a work.
18 The strong inference from those letters is that they were
19 considering taking out a copyright on whatever the finished
20 work product was.
21 In 19- -- In 1950, Urantia Foundation was formed.
22 Urantia Foundation was formed by those persons who had paid for
23 the contract to set these manuscripts down onto printing plates
24 so that a book could be published. Urantia Foundation, upon
25 its formation, accepted the rights and obligations that went
00082 { 2:18:11pm}
01 along with publishing The Urantia Book.
02 The declaration of trust of Urantia Foundation says that
03 Urantia Foundation is supposed to maintain the text of the book
04 inviolate, and it is supposed to retain all of the means of
05 reproduction of the book. With that in mind, the trustees, the
06 original trustees of Urantia Foundation, three of whom had been
07 Contact Commissioners before them, set out to attempt to
08 register a copyright in The Urantia Book. Indeed, on that
09 registration certificate, Urantia Foundation listed itself as
10 author. The evidence suggests there are two reasons for that.
11 The first is to retain the anonymity of the subject. The
12 second is because compilers and proprietors of works for hire
13 are deemed authors under the law, and we believe that the
14 evidence on the copyright application will provide us with
15 that -- with support for that proposition.
16 In Jesus - A New Revelation, the book that Michael
17 Foundation and Mr. McMullan have propagated, there is a
18 copyright claim on the inside by Michael Foundation, an
19 organization. It says that the volume arrangement and cover
20 design are copyright 1999, Michael Foundation, Inc. Arranging
21 materials in a creative way is compiling. It gives rise to an
22 authorship claim.
23 The evidence is going to suggest that even though
24 handwritten manuscripts made it into The Urantia Book, the
25 earliest manuscripts, those that were typed up by Emma
00083 { 2:20:06pm}
01 Christensen from her notes of the earliest contact sessions
02 apparently did not. The evidence is further going to suggest
03 that even once papers started appearing in longhand, there was
04 still this ongoing voluntary process where questions were being
05 asked from The Contact Commission and more information in
06 written form was being received in response to that
07 information, and The Contact Commission always was responsible
08 for maintaining tight custody and control over those
09 manuscripts and they never let them off the premises of
10 Dr. Sadler's home until it was time to publish the book.
11 Dr. Sadler's home, coincidentally, is the address of the
12 headquarters of Urantia Foundation in Chicago. The evidence
13 will show that Dr. Sadler's son, William Sadler, Jr., was an
14 initial trustee. And the evidence will further show that
15 Urantia Foundation was, in fact, the successor in interest to
16 The Contact Commission.
17 Now, we get to the tricky part: the original registration
18 term expires and in 1983 Urantia Foundation registers its claim
19 of copyright claiming that it is the proprietor of a work for
20 hire. Of course, no one was paid for the contribution in this
21 case and there's not going to be a dispute about that. Money
22 was raised, substantial sums were raised. We expect to
23 introduce at least one document that shows that over $100,000
24 was raised and expended by the Contact Commissioners and The
25 Forum in order to get this book into the marketplace. However,
00084 { 2:21:58pm}
01 we're going to be looking in this case at a doctrine that's not
02 very often used in the law, and that is the Doctrine of
03 Voluntary Works and Commissioned Works. While the Judge is the
04 final arbiter of what the law is in this case, we expect that
05 although we may not meet the classic definition of a work for
06 hire, that the Judge is going to give you instructions
07 regarding what a commissioned work is, which shares a sort of
08 kinship with works for hire and is deemed the equivalent of a
09 work for hire, but, nevertheless, a voluntary work which would
10 never be considered for hire can still be considered
11 commissioned, and that's what the evidence is going to show.
12 That over these numerous decades, The Contact Commission was
13 engaged in the process of commissioning this work.
14 Now, there is also an entirely different issue in the
15 case, because under the law as we believe the Judge is going to
16 give it to you, keeping in mind, of course, that Judge West is
17 the final arbiter of the law in this case, a proprietor who
18 renews a copyright only has to have a valid basis. So if you
19 make a mistake and you write down the wrong theory of renewal,
20 that's not a penalty as long as a valid theory of renewal does,
21 in fact, exist. That's where we get to the nature of the work
22 itself.
23 The Urantia Book has 196 papers. Not chapters. Papers.
24 Each paper, the evidence shows, is itself a compilation of
25 numerous facts and substantial information and each of the
00085 { 2:23:45pm}
01 papers -- and I should qualify this by saying if you don't
02 believe that the papers are, in fact, revelations and if that
03 belief doesn't impact your view of what The Urantia Book is,
04 each of those papers can stand alone. In fact, students of The
05 Urantia Book, as the evidence will show, take entire courses
06 and classes just to study one of these 196 papers. These
07 papers were received discreetly over the years by The Contact
08 Commission. The Contact Commission was maintaining the
09 arrangement of these papers and ultimately, of course,
10 published The Urantia Book, but by then The Contact Commission
11 had dissolved and Urantia Foundation had been formed to carry
12 on the preverbal torch.
13 So, what we have then is a book that is not only a work
14 for hire in the sense that it has -- that it is a voluntary
15 work that is akin to a work for hire, not a traditional work
16 for hire in the classic sense, but we also have a book that is
17 a composite work under the law and we expect to show you that
18 that is, in fact, the case.
19 Therefore, Jesus - A New Revelation, which contains 995
20 pages of identical quoting from The Urantia Book, 76
21 consecutive papers that comprised the last 76 papers of The
22 Urantia Book, we've got a case of plagiarism, otherwise known
23 as copyright infringement. We don't expect that there's going
24 to be any defense to the copy in this case and the fact that it
25 is substantial, nearly 400,000 consecutive words. We expect
00086 { 2:25:43pm}
01 that they're going to put all of their eggs into the basket of
02 attempting to invalidate our copyright.
03 Mr. McMullan has had previous experience in trying to in
04 validate Urantia Foundation's copyright. The evidence is going
05 to show that in a previous litigation involving the renewal
06 copyright of The Urantia Book, Mr. McMullan was involved, not
07 on the front lines but he provided, the evidence will show,
08 over $73,000 directly or indirectly to assist a woman named
09 Kristen Maaherra in her frontal assault on the validity of this
10 copyright. That assault was successful at the district court
11 level. However, the United States Court of Appeals in 1997,
12 the evidence will show, reversed and upheld the validity of the
13 copyright and held that Ms. Maaherra had infringed.
14 Mr. McMullan, the evidence will show, was not pleased with
15 that outcome and, in fact, remarked, when he learned of the
16 Court of Appeals' decision, that, "We might have to take this
17 to the Supreme Court and Urantia Foundation just cost me
18 $30,000."
19 Now, when Mr. McMullan goes back to The Fellowship, which
20 is an organization of readers of The Urantia Book that he
21 participates in that formerly was a sister organization to
22 Urantia Foundation but that broke away from Urantia Foundation
23 in 1989, Mr. McMullan offered his resignation from The
24 Fellowship because he anticipated he was going to once again go
25 back into court, and now that's where we are. He offered his
00087 { 2:27:30pm}
01 resignation as a gentleman because The Fellowship and Urantia
02 Foundation, ever since they split, have had tensions but there
03 have been a lot of efforts between those two organizations to
04 get back together or at least be friendly with one another.
05 Mr. McMullan knew that this litigation would be a thorn in the
06 side of coexistence between those two organizations and he
07 offered his resignation. He knew in 1997 when he offered that
08 resignation that one day he was going to be in this courtroom
09 again attacking this copyright. That's not all he did in 1997
10 though.
11 He also began registering Internet domain names. Now,
12 it's important to note that the evidence shows that Michael
13 Foundation has and -- has operated web sites such as
14 WWW.ChurchofChristMichael.org and WWW.JesusRevelation.org. But
15 what Mr. McMullan did was he went out and registered for
16 himself, and in some cases on behalf of Michael Foundation,
17 WWW.Urantian.org, WWW.UrantiaBook.org, WWW.UrantiaBook.com, and
18 he never put up a web site. He just put them up on the shelf.
19 Cybersquatting is a relatively new phenomena in the
20 courts. Congress in 1999 passed the act. This is one of the
21 first cases where a jury will be applying the cybersquatting
22 act principles to determine whether or not those registrations
23 were motivated by good faith on the part of Mr. McMullan or
24 whether or not they were motivated by a bad faith intent to
25 profit by putting those domain names on the shelf and out of
00088 { 2:29:30pm}
01 the reach of Urantia Foundation. There's another fact that you
02 need to know in connection with that, and that is that
03 Mr. McMullan told Tonia Baney, the executive director of
04 Urantia Foundation, in a telephone conference in 1997 that he
05 was going after the marks too, that he would tie up Urantia
06 Foundation in the courts for the rest of his and her life, and
07 I believe he predicted that that would be 30 years.
08 The issue then squarely becomes whether or not
09 Mr. McMullan was attempting to bait Urantia Foundation.
10 Urantia Foundation brought these claims because it owns and
11 uses federally-registered trademarks, Urantia and Urantian, in
12 connection with its distribution of books and other services.
13 It also operates a 1,600 member collective membership
14 organization, a fraternal or social organization for readers of
15 The Urantia Book to get together and study the book.
16 What Mr. McMullan is going -- what we anticipate that
17 Mr. McMullan is going to do is he's going to say that, "I am
18 entitled just like anybody else is to use these words." Fine.
19 We all use these words. We all use words that operate as
20 registered trademarks. I say, "Look at Mars in the sky," and
21 that's fundamentally different than branding a candy bar with
22 Mars and the circle R next to it. Our concern, of course, is
23 that Internet domain names are becoming progressively more
24 valuable as our economy migrates onto the Internet, and indeed
25 we expect to offer significant evidence that shows that the
00089 { 2:31:16pm}
01 Internet is a large part of Urantia Foundation's business
02 activities.
03 Now, I want to say a word about Urantia Foundation because
04 I know that this is all hitting you very fast and you're trying
05 to make up your mind about what could possibly be in The
06 Urantia Book that would cause someone to break out the last
07 part and publish a book called Jesus - A New Revelation.
08 Urantia Foundation is not a church. In 46 -- in the last 51
09 years of Urantia Foundation's existence, it has never formed a
10 church, it has never affiliated with a church, it has never
11 issued official proclamations of doctrine or official
12 interpretation of anything in The Urantia Book. Urantia
13 Foundation stands for the principle that The Urantia Book is a
14 book that, if read and understood, will uplift people's
15 religious thinking and, therefore, is a book that could be read
16 by any of the people -- or any of the religions of the world.
17 Not to say at Urantia Foundation that it is not a proselytizing
18 agent; it is not out seeking to convert people. It is, though,
19 selling the book and the evidence is going to show that a
20 historical kinship has developed between Urantia Foundation and
21 The Urantia Book such that there is the extreme possibility,
22 indeed the likelihood of confusion regarding these registered
23 domains and why Urantia Foundation wants to have those domains
24 for its own purposes, because The Urantia Book and Urantia
25 Foundation have co-existed in the commercial marketplace for
00090 { 2:33:12pm}
01 the last 46 years. Urantia Foundation, for a large, large part
02 of those 46 years has been the sole publisher of The Urantia
03 Book, except for that two year hiatus while the Maaherra case
04 was on appeal from 1995 to 1997.
05 We have a big bull's eye on our back in this case and that
06 is the fact that Urantia Foundation, in its 50-plus year
07 history, has been involved in copyright litigation before.
08 Urantia Foundation has never taken the position that a human
09 author of The Urantia Book exists because its religious faith
10 precludes it from doing it, and I am not going to be permitted
11 in this case to attempt to argue about who a human author is.
12 They're going to have evidence in this case, I recognize
13 that, that the papers that make up the book are written in the
14 handwriting of the subject. We have to live with that
15 evidence. Urantia Foundation's spiritual faith does not allow
16 it to accept the proposition though that celestial authors did
17 not -- or were not responsible for offering this book. Respect
18 that belief, please, but we'll make up our minds in this case
19 based upon the actual evidence and we'll see where that takes
20 us. Certainly, if what Mr. McMullan says is true and the
21 subject is, in fact, the writer author of each of the
22 manuscripts in these papers, then we expect to show that our
23 copyright is fully valid because The Urantia Book meets not
24 only the definition of voluntary commissioned work but it also
25 meets the definition of a composite work under the law.
00091 { 2:35:22pm}
01 It is -- It is, by definition, 196 separate detailed
02 intimate factual compilations that are strung together to make
03 up an impressive work, even to someone who like myself does not
04 read the book on a regular occasion. The way the book is
05 divided out is rather interesting. It starts in part I with a
06 description of the entire -- the entirety of the universe. In
07 part II, it then describes the story of our part of the
08 galaxy. Part III is devoted to discussing nothing but the
09 history of our planet, which in the book is named Urantia. And
10 part IV is called The Life and Teachings of Jesus.
11 We expect that the evidence is going to show that because
12 of the substantial information that's imparted in this book, it
13 also meets the definition of a subset of composite works known
14 as cyclopedic works, and we believe, although ultimately Judge
15 West will have to advise you as to the law in this matter, that
16 a cyclopedic work is something that exhaustively treats a
17 number of fields of human learning.
18 With that in mind, we hope that when all of the evidence
19 is in, what will have been shown definitively is that
20 notwithstanding the subject's participation in this voluntary
21 process of questions and answers causing papers that were in
22 the custody at all times of The Contact Commission, which later
23 formalized itself as Urantia Foundation, we expect that the
24 facts, as they come out, are going to show that there was this
25 voluntary process that makes this book a commissioned work and
00092 { 2:37:28pm}
01 also that the book itself is composite in nature, or compiled
02 in nature, and, therefore, we expect that you're going to find
03 that this is, in fact, a case of plagiarism with just a hint of
04 the desire for revenge to even up the score for that $73,000
05 that was lost by Mr. McMullan in the last case in which he
06 attempted to invalidate this copyright.
07 Thank you.
08 THE COURT: Will all the witnesses in the courtroom
09 who expect to testify in this case please stand and raise your
10 right hand and be sworn, if any.
11 Call your first witness.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Call Richard Keeler, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Present in the courtroom?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't see him, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: You'll have to recover him.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll get him.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, we need a minute to haul the
18 rest of these books up, by the way.
19 THE COURT: Pardon?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: We need a minute to haul the rest of
21 these books up, if we might.
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 Call your witness, counsel. Is he here?
24 Come right up, if you will, please, and take the stand and
25 raise your right hand and be sworn. Raise your right hand and
00093 { 2:41:40pm}
01 be sworn, please.
02 (WITNESS SWORN)
03 KENNETH RICHARD KEELER,
04 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
05 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
06 THE COURT: Would you be seated.
07 I'll ask you to speak directly into the microphone. I'll
08 ask you to state your full name and spell your last name for
09 the Court and for the jury.
10 THE WITNESS: Kenneth Richard Keeler, K-E-E-L-E-R.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: May I proceed?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
15 Q. Mr. Keeler, you are currently the president of the board
16 of trustees of The Urantia Foundation?
17 A. True.
18 Q. How long have you had that office?
19 A. For three years.
20 Q. And did you have an official attachment to that
21 organization prior to that?
22 A. Prior to being president?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What?
00094 { 2:42:36pm}
01 A. I was trustee.
02 Q. And now you are president of the trustees?
03 A. President and trustee of The Urantia Foundation, yes.
04 THE COURT: That may be my ears. I apologize. I
05 can't hear them but everyone else can.
06 Go ahead. Is that still singing?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: No, sir. Are we all right?
08 THE COURT: Yeah. Go ahead.
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) How long did you serve as a trustee of
10 that organization?
11 A. For about nine years before I became president. I became
12 a trustee in 1989.
13 Q. Is that longer than anybody else that served in that
14 capacity?
15 A. Oh, no.
16 Q. But give me a date. When did you first assume the duties
17 as a trustee of The Urantia Foundation?
18 A. July of 1989.
19 Q. And did you have an association with -- I'm going to call
20 it the Urantia movement prior to that date?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you explain for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury
23 what that was?
24 A. I was at the University of Kansas -- originally from
25 Bartlesville, Oklahoma, by the way -- I was at the University
00095 { 2:44:10pm}
01 of Kansas and a fraternity brother of mine told me about The
02 Urantia Book and I heard about The Urantia Book in 1959 and
03 began -- bought a copy in 1960 and began reading it, and for
04 about the first 10 years I just read it on my own and was
05 interested in it. Was busy with other things. And then in
06 probably 1970 I became interested in interacting with other
07 readers in The Urantia Book and started attending a study
08 group.
09 Q. And you have maintained that interest and association up
10 till today?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As president of the board of trustees of The Urantia
13 Foundation, did you authorize a lawsuit to be filed against The
14 Michael Foundation in Arizona?
15 A. The board of trustees did.
16 Q. And you were the president of that board?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And as the president of that board, did you and your
19 fellow trustees authorize the claims against Mr. McMullan and
20 The Michael Foundation in this case?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, we'd move that
23 Mr. Keeler -- we be allowed to treat Mr. Keeler as an adverse
24 witness in this case.
25 THE COURT: You may proceed, counselor.
00096 { 2:45:43pm}
01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You are here in that capacity today as
02 the president of the board of trustees of The Urantia
03 Foundation?
04 A. I assume so. I assume that's the reason you've called me
05 here.
06 Q. How many trustees are there?
07 A. Five.
08 Q. Could you name them, please?
09 A. Mo Seigel, Gard Jameson, Georges Michelson Dupont, Kwan
10 Choi, and Richard Keeler.
11 Q. Have all of those people been trustees longer or shorter
12 period of time than you?
13 A. Less time than I have.
14 Q. So you have seniority on the board?
15 A. You could say that. I've been on the board longer than
16 they.
17 Q. Doesn't that equate to seniority?
18 A. Not necessarily. I sometimes say I get no respect.
19 Q. No perks no, respect; right?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Let me turn, sir, to The Urantia Book itself and how it
22 came to be. Did you ever meet Dr. William Sadler?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And he was a psychiatrist?
25 A. Yes.
00097 { 2:47:09pm}
01 Q. Practiced his profession in Chicago?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. He published many books, didn't he?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. And although he published books himself, he really wasn't
06 a publisher as such, he was an author; is that correct?
07 A. That's my understanding.
08 Q. You met Dr. Sadler when?
09 A. 1962.
10 Q. And on how many occasions did you meet him?
11 A. Fewer than a dozen. More than -- more than half a dozen.
12 Q. When was the last time you met him?
13 A. Probably in 1968. He died in 1969. I may have seen in
14 '69, but '68 or '9, I suppose.
15 Q. So he passed away some 30-odd years ago?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Now, in the course of your association with the Urantia
18 movement and The Urantia Book, have you come to a view, a
19 theory, or a belief as to how that book came about?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in the course of your dealings with the Urantia
22 movement and The Urantia Foundation, have you personally taken
23 an oath not to reveal some of the information that you
24 acquired?
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Objection, Your Honor. Compound.
00098 { 2:49:02pm}
01 THE COURT: Restate your question, counselor.
02 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Have you taken an oath not to reveal
03 some of the information that you acquired in reaching those
04 views?
05 A. No.
06 Q. Have you taken an oath not to reveal certain facts or
07 circumstances that you've learned during the process of
08 developing your views?
09 A. It was understood that -- I didn't raise my hand and take
10 an oath, as I did here a few minutes ago, but it was understood
11 that certain information was shared with me in confidence.
12 Q. And if I asked you to share that information with the
13 ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would decline to do so?
14 A. I think so.
15 Q. Based upon what?
16 A. The fact that I gave -- or indicated my word that I would
17 not communicate, communicate that information with other
18 persons.
19 Q. Is that information the basis of an attorney/client
20 relationship?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Is that information the basis of information you got from
23 a clergyman?
24 A. Is it information I got from a clergyman?
25 Q. Yeah.
00099 { 2:50:46pm}
01 A. No.
02 Q. Is there any other reason that you know, a legal reason,
03 why you shouldn't be required to reveal that information?
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Objection, Your Honor. Calls for
05 a legal conclusion.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: I'll withdraw the question.
07 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What is the general subject nature of
08 the material that you have -- may I use the word "promised" --
09 promised not to reveal?
10 A. Close enough, promised.
11 What's the nature?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Well, I don't know that it relates -- if I had to say a
14 general category, maybe it has a little bit to do with the
15 origin of the book but there was some curious events that took
16 place at the time The Urantia Book was being materialized and
17 certain of that information that I think is not relevant, not
18 even close to being relevant to this case was shared with me.
19 It was personal information that was shared with Contact
20 Commissioners.
21 Q. Did it have to do with the identity of the patient?
22 A. I'll give you an example of the type of information that
23 it was.
24 Q. Please just respond to my question, sir.
25 A. Once Dr. Sadler --
00100 { 2:52:34pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I have a response to my
02 question?
03 THE COURT: Yes.
04 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Repeat your question.
05 THE COURT: Restate your question and respond to his
06 question, if you can, directly without any explanation and so
07 forth and you'll be given an opportunity by your counsel since
08 he has you, in effect, on cross-examination. Answer "yes" or
09 "no" if you can, and then you'll be given an opportunity to
10 explain further.
11 Let me move this over a little. I'm having a little
12 difficulty hearing you. I'll move that out of the way.
13 Go ahead. Restate your question.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Does the information that you have
16 declined to reveal include information regarding the identity
17 of the patient?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You've indicated that part of the information that you
20 will not reveal has to do with the origin of The Urantia Book.
21 A. In a very remote way.
22 Q. That's your characterization?
23 A. True. Everything I say is my characterization. I'm the
24 world's expert on my opinion.
25 Q. We would hope so.
00101 { 2:53:49pm}
01 You have declined in this case to reveal that information
02 with respect to the origin of this book; is that correct?
03 A. Well, I think I want --
04 Q. Yes or no.
05 A. Yes. If I have to answer yes or no, yes.
06 Q. Now, let's talk about the patient. Your understanding is
07 that a man that had a psychiatric malady came to Dr. Sadler for
08 treatment of that condition; is that correct?
09 A. False.
10 Q. That is not correct?
11 A. That's not the way I would characterize it.
12 Q. Do you recall that this patient came to Dr. Sadler
13 voluntarily with his wife and his wife asked Dr. Sadler for his
14 medical advice with respect to his condition?
15 A. I would agree with that.
16 Q. And that occurred when, sir?
17 A. In the early 1900s.
18 Q. Your information is that Dr. Sadler was a psychiatrist?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. A medical doctor?
21 A. Had been a surgeon before he became a psychiatrist.
22 Q. But a medical doctor?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And he was skilled and expert in the diseases of the mind?
25 A. I think so.
00102 { 2:55:23pm}
01 Q. And this patient presented himself with his wife suffering
02 from a disease of the mind?
03 A. I wouldn't characterize it that way. I don't think --
04 well, go ahead.
05 Q. This patient presented himself with his wife to Dr. Sadler
06 with a condition that his wife believed that Dr. Sadler could
07 help him with?
08 A. If I have to answer yes or no, yes.
09 Q. Thank you.
10 The identity of that patient was never revealed to
11 anybody; is that correct?
12 A. That's my understanding.
13 Q. You don't know the identity of that person?
14 A. True.
15 Q. You have never seen any medical records on that person?
16 A. True.
17 Q. You have never seen any diagnosis about that person?
18 A. True.
19 Q. You have never seen any treatment schedule that purports
20 to outline what Dr. Sadler did for this patient?
21 A. True.
22 Q. Has anybody?
23 A. Not that I know of.
24 Q. Now, this patient -- What is your understanding of the
25 time frame we're talking about?
00103 { 2:56:45pm}
01 A. This project started in the early 1900s and went on for
02 about 50 years until 1955.
03 Q. Was the patient around in 1955?
04 A. I assume so.
05 Q. Do you know?
06 A. No.
07 Q. Do you know when the patient died?
08 A. No.
09 Q. Does anybody know when the patient died?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Do any of the present members of the board of trustees
12 know when the patient died?
13 A. In my opinion, none of the present board of trustees knows
14 when the patient died.
15 Q. Does anybody know whether or not the patient died prior to
16 1983, the date of the copyright renewal?
17 A. No one knows when the patient died.
18 Q. Have any representations been made that the patient was
19 alive in 1983?
20 A. No.
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Objection, Your Honor.
22 Representations?
23 THE COURT: Sustained. Go ahead.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Are you aware of any information that
25 would indicate that the patient was alive in 1983?
00104 { 2:58:00pm}
01 A. I know of no such information.
02 Q. Do you know of any information that would indicate whether
03 or not the patient was alive in 1955?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. And what is that information?
06 A. I spoke with Dr. Sadler in 1962 and he told me of
07 communications that were going on between The Contact
08 Commission and certain celestial beings through the contact
09 person as late as October of 1955.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move that the answer be stricken
11 based upon that its hearsay content.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 MR. HILL: Judge, I'm sorry. I didn't hear your
14 ruling.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, during the course of assembling
17 information that you used to come to your own views and
18 conclusions regarding this work, your information is that the
19 196 papers in The Urantia Book were originally in the
20 handwriting of the patient; is that correct?
21 A. Dr. Sadler told me as much.
22 Q. And you've come to that view?
23 A. I believe that.
24 Q. And there isn't anything in this book that wasn't in
25 longhand of the patient other than the additions to this book
00105 { 2:59:51pm}
01 by Bill Sadler, Jr.; is that correct?
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if he's going to be
03 referring to an exhibit, I'd like it to be tendered in
04 evidence.
05 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If he's going to refer to an
07 exhibit, I'd like it tendered into evidence.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: I will do that, Your Honor.
09 THE COURT: All right.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: Sure. Let me know and understand who's
12 going to be objecting and so forth.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: (COUNSEL INDICATES BY RAISING
14 HAND)
15 THE COURT: You are? Okay.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you identify that for the ladies
17 and gentlemen of the jury, please.
18 A. This is a first printing of The Urantia Book. This is a
19 first printing of The Urantia Book.
20 Q. And that is known as The Urantia Book in hard cover?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: We have marked that as exhibit 80, Your
23 Honor, and we'd ask that it be admitted.
24 THE COURT: Any objection?
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: None.
00106 { 3:00:57pm}
01 THE COURT: Be admitted.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
03 While we're at it, may I approach again, Your Honor?
04 Your Honor, it might be easier for the jury if I might ask
05 the covers of those be projected so the jury can get a sense of
06 the --
07 THE COURT: Sure.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: It's exhibit 78.
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, would you please identify that
10 exhibit, 78.
11 A. I have two books here. They're both exhibit 78.
12 Q. I'm going to remedy that. Let me call this one 78-A and
13 78-B.
14 What is 78-A?
15 A. It is a Urantia Book published by Uversa Press.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Pardon me, Your Honor. If I may
17 interrupt. They only have one exhibit for 78. It does say
18 that it's Urantia Book, paper back.
19 THE COURT: Are these identical?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: No, they're different. That's why I
21 made one A and one B.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Your objection is they only list
23 one?
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: They list one book, Your Honor.
25 I'm not sure what the other book is.
00107 { 3:03:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: He knows what the other book is. Is he
02 objecting?
03 THE COURT: Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I can't hear
04 you.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: I said I believe they do know what the
06 other book is, but I will withdraw it if that's --
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I actually don't know what the
08 book is.
09 THE COURT: Have you shown it to him, counselor?
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me, Your Honor.
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I object that it's not on the
12 exhibit list, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Object on the grounds it is not listed as
14 an exhibit?
15 Do you wish to respond?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: I'll withdraw it.
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, let me show you exhibit 78. That
18 is, sir, please?
19 THE COURT: Question?
20 A. What was the question?
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you identify that for the Court
22 and ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
23 A. This is the third printing of the soft-cover edition of
24 The Urantia Book printed by Urantia Foundation.
25 Q. Are the two books in front of you identical, sir, other
00108 { 3:04:39pm}
01 than one's hard and one's soft, and one is larger than the
02 other? The contents, are they the same?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. When was the paperback first published?
05 A. In the 1990s. 1995.
06 Q. Incidentally, how have the sales of that book gone in the
07 last five years?
08 A. Of which book?
09 Q. Either book. Both books.
10 A. Does that include translations?
11 Q. Let's just talk about the English version.
12 A. Sales have grown dramatically.
13 Q. I'm sorry?
14 A. Sales of The Urantia Book have grown dramatically. In
15 1958 we sold three copies, and last year we sold almost 40,000
16 last year.
17 Q. And isn't it true that the publication of Jesus - A New
18 Revelation did not interfere with the increase in the sales of
19 those books?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. You don't know to the contrary, do you? You don't have
22 any evidence that would establish that it has; is that correct?
23 A. True.
24 Q. All right. Now, is it true, sir, that the patient's
25 handwriting of the text of The Urantia Book is the first
00109 { 3:06:33pm}
01 tangible expression of the contents of The Urantia Book?
02 A. As a matter of belief, what you just said is -- as a
03 matter of belief, I believe that what you just said is true.
04 Q. You know of no --
05 THE COURT: Counsel, will this be a good place to
06 take a 15-minute recess at this point?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, Your Honor.
08 THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're
09 going to be recessed for 15 minutes. I'll ask you to be back
10 in the jury box in your exact seats at the end of 15 minutes.
11 I again remind you of my previous admonition not to
12 discuss this case.
13 Everyone please stand until the jurors clear the
14 courtroom.
15 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
16 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
17 THE COURT: Court's in recess.
18 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
19 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
20 THE JURY:)
21 THE COURT: Mr. Abowitz.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: May I proceed?
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) The first tangible expression of the
24 substance of the 196 papers of The Urantia Book was not from
25 multiple sources; is that correct?
00110 { 3:24:07pm}
01 A. From multiple sources? That's my belief and
02 understanding.
03 Q. You just told us that the first tangible expression of
04 that book was in the handwriting of the patient.
05 A. It was in the handwriting of the patient.
06 Q. It was not in the handwriting of anybody else but the
07 patient?
08 A. That's my belief.
09 Q. There weren't others that hand wrote?
10 A. Not that I know of.
11 Q. All right. Thank you.
12 Now, there was, with respect to what was handwritten and
13 finally ended up as The Urantia Book, it was exactly the same
14 thing except for maybe spelling and punctuation; is that
15 correct?
16 A. I think so.
17 Q. And there were no substantive changes in the text?
18 A. Substantive changes? There was a question and answer
19 process that went on. Dr. Sadler said no questions, no
20 papers --
21 Q. I understand.
22 A. -- and after the papers were materialized, then they were
23 read to a group called The Forum and there were comments and
24 there was feedback and it's my understanding that the papers
25 were revised as a result of the input from these humans.
00111 { 3:25:31pm}
01 Q. Everything that got into The Urantia Book was written in
02 the hand of the patient; is that correct?
03 A. I believe that.
04 Q. There is no record of any questions that were asked by
05 anybody; is that correct?
06 A. A written record?
07 Q. Yes.
08 A. I've heard of oral records.
09 Q. I'm asking about written. Something we can look at,
10 something we can see.
11 A. There is no written record that I know of.
12 Q. There is nothing that we can see and touch and feel that's
13 evidence of any of these questions; is that correct?
14 A. I think what you just said is true.
15 Q. And it is also correct, is it not, that there isn't
16 anybody that can look at that Urantia Book and say, "This part
17 came from a question"?
18 A. I think there probably is at least one individual who
19 could say that.
20 Q. Who?
21 A. Mary Lou Hales.
22 Q. And it's her view that she can look through that book and
23 say, "I can remember this was a question and this is how it was
24 resolved"?
25 A. I think so.
00112 { 3:26:39pm}
01 Q. All right. But she has no written record of it either?
02 A. I don't know.
03 Q. And when did that happen? How many years ago?
04 A. In the '30s.
05 Q. 70 years ago?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Okay. Now, you agree that the book did not come from what
08 Emma Christensen wrote down that the sleeping patient said
09 verbally; is that correct?
10 A. True.
11 Q. So, there are no parts of that book that come from what
12 Emma Christensen wrote down that she did what the patient said
13 verbally?
14 A. That's my belief.
15 Q. You can't, as the president of the board of trustees of
16 The Urantia Foundation, tell the Court and the ladies and
17 gentlemen of the jury today specifically what part of that book
18 came from any of this questioning process that you've alluded
19 to; correct?
20 A. True.
21 Q. Did anybody see the patient write this out?
22 A. Dr. Sadler told me that no one saw the patient write any
23 of the material that's in The Urantia Book.
24 Q. But the belief is, your belief is that the writing was the
25 handwriting of the patient; there is no doubt about that?
00113 { 3:28:41pm}
01 A. That is my belief.
02 Q. And there is no evidence to dispute that; is that correct?
03 A. None that I know of.
04 Q. Now, the patient wrote them and they somehow moved beyond
05 the patient; is that correct? The transcript, the handwritten
06 transcript produced by the patient.
07 A. It was in that patient's handwriting. You said he wrote
08 them. I don't know that. I just know it was in his hand -- or
09 I believe that it was in his handwriting.
10 Q. There is no evidence to the fact that the patient did not
11 write them; is that correct?
12 A. There is no evidence that I know of that the manuscripts
13 were in anyone's handwriting but the contact's.
14 Q. The patient?
15 A. The sleeping -- well, I prefer to call him the sleeping
16 subject or the contact because that was the term that
17 Dr. Sadler always used. You earlier wanted me to say "patient"
18 and I feel uncomfortable saying "patient."
19 Q. All right. Well, let's define who this person is. This
20 isn't a different person, is it, than the one that was brought
21 by his wife to Dr. Sadler for help with his malady, is it?
22 Same person.
23 A. The person who went to Dr. -- you're saying "malady." I
24 have difficulty with that. But what you're calling the patient
25 is the same person that I'm calling, in my opinion, is calling
00114 { 3:30:38pm}
01 the contact or the sleeping subject. Those were the terms that
02 Dr. Sadler used. He did not say "my patient" that I recall in
03 my conversations with him.
04 Q. But you are not disputing that the person I am calling the
05 patient is the same person that you're calling the contact that
06 is the same person that hand wrote this book; is that correct?
07 A. No, I'm saying it was in his handwriting but, as a matter
08 of belief, I believe he did not write the book.
09 Q. All right. But you do concede it was his handwriting?
10 A. He was the sleeping subject. Yes, it was in his
11 handwriting.
12 Q. Okay. You know of no evidence, do you, that will support
13 the proposition that he was the sleeping subject?
14 A. Well, I was not there. I'm just going on what Dr. Sadler
15 told me.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. He was a sleeping subject. He was not conscious of any of
18 this that went on for almost 50 years.
19 Q. And you weren't there and there isn't anybody else that
20 was around that can tell us that?
21 A. No one directly with the sleeping subject. None of the
22 Contact Commissioners are alive.
23 Q. Now, you have reached the view that there was an
24 assignment of the rights of the patient/ -- what did you call
25 him?
00115 { 3:32:08pm}
01 A. Sleeping subject.
02 Q. Well, let's call him the patient/subject; is that -- will
03 that help? The patient/contact?
04 A. Okay. Contact. The contact.
05 Q. Patient/contact?
06 A. Well, we'll say "patient" for you and "contact" for me.
07 Q. All right. And we can have an agreement on that? That's
08 how we'll refer to him so we can cut off this debate, okay?
09 A. Okay.
10 Q. The patient/contact assigned his right in that handwriting
11 to Dr. Sadler?
12 A. What do you mean by "assigned"?
13 Q. Somehow it moved from the patient to Dr. Sadler.
14 Dr. Sadler got a hold of these; right?
15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
16 the question. I think they're vague, frankly. What does he
17 mean by "it" and what does he mean by "right"?
18 THE COURT: Overruled. I think he can answer the
19 question if he knows the answer.
20 A. "Assigned"? "Assigned" sounds like something very legal
21 and official and in writing.
22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Or it could be as simple as, "I give
23 this to you."
24 A. Yeah. He turned them over to the Sadler team known as The
25 Contact Commission.
00116 { 3:33:32pm}
01 Q. Is there any evidence that you can direct us to that
02 establishes how he gave him?
03 A. None that I know of.
04 Q. Is there any evidence to establish that it was by virtue
05 of a written assignment? In other words, a writing that says,
06 "I give this to you."
07 A. There was nothing that I know of that was in writing.
08 Q. Is there any evidence that you know of that we can look to
09 to determine whether the patient/contact was competent to give
10 this to Dr. Sadler?
11 A. None that I know of.
12 Q. Is there any evidence that you can point to that would
13 show us that the patient/contact was advised of his rights
14 before he gave it away?
15 A. I know of no such information.
16 Q. Now, we know Dr. Sadler -- let's call -- let's term it as
17 took possession of the handwriting, the handwritten text; is
18 that correct?
19 A. I would feel more comfortable saying that The Contact
20 Commission, this group, this entity, The Contact Commission,
21 took possession.
22 Q. The Sadler team?
23 A. The Sadler team.
24 Q. Took possession?
25 A. Yes.
00117 { 3:35:25pm}
01 Q. And they had this handwritten version of this book
02 transcribed into type?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. And they destroyed the handwritten manuscript?
05 A. That's my understanding.
06 Q. And they eventually destroyed the typewritten manuscript?
07 A. That's my understanding.
08 Q. So there isn't anything today that we can look to as
09 evidence with respect to either the handwritten version or the
10 typewritten version, the first typewritten version?
11 A. True.
12 Q. Now, the Sadler team took possession, however that
13 happened, and essentially printing plates were made of that
14 book; correct?
15 A. That's my understanding.
16 Q. And the first printing plates were destroyed?
17 A. That's my understanding.
18 Q. And the subsequent printing plates that were used to print
19 the book was used to print the version of the book that was
20 copyrighted?
21 A. Would you repeat that?
22 Q. I'll start all over again.
23 Eventually, the book was copyrighted; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that was in what year?
00118 { 3:37:21pm}
01 A. It was copyrighted in 1955 but the copyright was
02 registered in 1956.
03 Q. Now, have you developed a belief as to how the four
04 portions of the book came into being? Were they all -- Did
05 they all come into being at the same time?
06 A. No.
07 Q. Do you agree that the last portion of the book which now
08 comprises Jesus - A New Revelation, came approximately a year
09 after the rest of the book?
10 A. I have heard that.
11 Q. Do you believe that?
12 A. I think I believe that.
13 Q. Is there any evidence to dispute that?
14 A. None that I know of.
15 Q. And is it true that the fourth portion of the book Jesus -
16 A New Revelation came as a whole from paper 120 to paper 196?
17 A. The fourth part of the book is not called Jesus - A New
18 Revelation.
19 Q. I'm talking about the fourth part. I'm sorry.
20 A. It's called The Life and Teachings of Jesus.
21 Q. I'm sorry. Please excuse my confusion.
22 Let's talk about the fourth portion of the book that
23 became Jesus - A New Revelation. That portion of The Urantia
24 Book came as an entire part; it did not come in pieces; is that
25 correct?
00119 { 3:38:55pm}
01 A. I have heard that said.
02 Q. And there's no evidence to dispute that; is that correct?
03 A. True. None that I know of.
04 Q. And that portion of the book, the fourth portion of the
05 book, came as a whole a year after the first three parts?
06 A. I had heard that.
07 Q. And there's no evidence to dispute that?
08 A. True.
09 Q. And you believe that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, let me get back to something you said earlier. You
12 indicated that you were first introduced to The Urantia Book by
13 a fraternity brother; is that correct?
14 A. True.
15 Q. And that was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Grimsley?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Grimsley was active in the Urantia movement?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And can you tell us whether or not you became involved --
20 if you did, at what point -- with Mr. Grimsley and his Urantia
21 activities?
22 A. Would you be more specific?
23 Q. Well, what was -- Did Mr. Grimsley set up a radio
24 broadcast ministry in California?
25 A. Yes.
00120 { 3:40:31pm}
01 Q. Were you part of that?
02 A. Indirectly.
03 Q. In what fashion?
04 A. I invested some money that had been contributed to his
05 foundation.
06 Q. What was the name of the foundation?
07 A. The Family of God Foundation.
08 Q. And you essentially had a role by virtue of your
09 investment in that?
10 Strike that. "Investment" is a bad word.
11 Your contribution to that enterprise?
12 A. I was investing money that had been contributed to
13 Mr. Grimsley's foundation.
14 Q. I misunderstood you.
15 People contributed to that foundation and your business is
16 that of an investment counselor and you took that money and
17 invested it for The Foundation?
18 A. True.
19 Q. To create a return for The Foundation?
20 A. True.
21 Q. All right. Other than that, did you have any -- did you
22 have any formal association with that ministry?
23 A. Well, I was called a co-worker of the organization. It
24 was in northern California and I lived, by plane, probably an
25 hour-and-a-half away, so I was officially a co-worker but I --
00121 { 3:42:07pm}
01 Q. What is a co-worker?
02 A. That's what they call people who were officially
03 associated with the organization.
04 Q. And what did the organization do?
05 A. It mostly was a service organization related to a radio
06 ministry that was conducted by Mr. Grimsley.
07 Q. And that essentially was run out of Mr. Grimsley's
08 apartment in Berkeley, California?
09 A. It wasn't his apartment. It was a residence.
10 Q. Did you furnish financial support to that organization?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How much?
13 A. $25,000, I think.
14 Q. And what year was that?
15 A. Probably in the mid '60s.
16 Q. And at some point --
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I'm a little confused
18 as to the relevancy of this.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to tie it up, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, counselor.
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) At some point, did Mr. Grimsley move
22 that facility?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Where did he move it?
25 A. To a community some miles from Berkeley, California, where
00122 { 3:43:39pm}
01 he had his foundation.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I'd like to approach
03 the bench, if I may, and bring something up.
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
05 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I have no idea where he's going
07 with this.
08 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I don't hear you.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I have no idea where he's going.
10 THE COURT: I don't have any idea either. I wonder
11 if Murray does.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: I do.
13 THE COURT: What is it? Tell me now pretty plainly
14 where we're going.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I believe this witness will testify
16 that this gentleman became possessed of spirits and was
17 involved in channeling, in fact, to this patient/contact and
18 was some medium for these spirits.
19 THE COURT: You're going to get this guy to testify
20 that, who, Grimsley?
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Uh-huh.
22 THE COURT: Was a medium or a channeler himself?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Yeah.
24 THE COURT: And what if he says no?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Then I'm done.
00123 { 3:44:44pm}
01 THE COURT: All right. Let's be sure.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Hold on, Your Honor. May I? His
03 spiritual beliefs are not in issue.
04 THE COURT: Pardon?
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: His spiritual believes are not in
06 issue. Even if he says yes, all they're doing is trying to
07 prejudice the jury. It has absolutely nothing to do with this
08 case.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: It has nothing to do with him except
10 his opinion and view of The Urantia Foundation.
11 THE COURT: He has been giving some opinions here
12 with regard to this thing. Where do you shut him off and where
13 do you keep him?
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Well, he's been giving opinions as
15 to The Urantia Book, which he believes to be a revelation.
16 Whether or not this guy was possessed by spirits, how is that
17 at all relevant to this case except to prejudice?
18 MR. ABOWITZ: The relevance is is that I believe that
19 when we get to the end of this question-and-answering session,
20 that he will say the very -- that The Urantia Foundation, as a
21 matter of principle, does not believe in the phenomenon or does
22 not countenance this business that they now ascribe to.
23 THE COURT: I'm going to give you a little while on
24 this but if you don't get --
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I will tell you that
00124 { 3:45:55pm}
01 he will testify -- that it's likely that he will say that they
02 do not believe in channeling. Let him ask that question.
03 THE COURT: But if he says that, you're through.
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Let him just say, "Do you believe
05 in channeling?"
06 MR. ABOWITZ: No, no, no. If he says they believe in
07 channeling, I go on. If he says they don't, then I sit down.
08 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
09 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
10 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, at one point, Mr. Grimsley became
12 possessed of spirits --
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I thought we
14 were going -- that he was going to ask a question.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I am.
16 THE COURT: All right. Overruled. Go ahead,
17 counselor.
18 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, at one point, Mr. Grimsley became
19 possessed --
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor. Objection.
21 Foundation.
22 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor -- excuse me.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. -- Did at one time Mr. Grimsley
25 become possessed of spirits that told him there was going to be
00125 { 3:47:18pm}
01 a nuclear third world war?
02 A. I would not characterize his experience that way.
03 Q. I'm sorry?
04 A. I would not characterize his experience that way. You
05 used the term "possessed by spirits." I would not use that
06 term.
07 Q. Did the spirits give him the information that there would
08 be a third world nuclear war?
09 A. He believed, in some way that I don't understand, that he
10 believed that somehow he had been told by celestial beings that
11 there was going to be world war III.
12 Q. And people reacted to that; they moved out to his compound
13 in preparation for this; correct?
14 A. Some did. Some did.
15 Q. And would you describe that, sir, as channeling?
16 A. I don't know what it was. No.
17 Q. What is channeling?
18 A. I wouldn't describe it as channeling or not as
19 channeling. I don't really know -- I don't think I know what
20 channeling is.
21 Q. Would you say that he was possessed?
22 A. No.
23 Q. What is The Urantia Foundation's position on channeling?
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, would counsel describe
25 what he means by "channeling"? He just said he doesn't know.
00126 { 3:48:47pm}
01 THE COURT: Overruled. Answer, if you can.
02 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me rephrase it.
03 Does The Urantia Foundation have a view of channeling?
04 A. Well, those individuals -- I'll put it this way: Those
05 individuals who describe what they're doing as channeling, we
06 have gone out of our way to say that there is no official
07 connection between us and those individuals even though they
08 may be readers of The Urantia Book.
09 Q. And would you agree that an acceptable definition of
10 channeling is a meditative or trance-like state?
11 A. Would you repeat that?
12 Q. Yes.
13 Would you agree that a working definition of channeling is
14 a meditative or trance-like state in order to convey messages
15 from a spiritual being or guide?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. You don't know if that's a working definition?
18 A. I don't know. That's correct, I do not know if that would
19 be a good working definition.
20 Q. If that is a working definition, would you agree that
21 that's essentially how you've described the patient contact?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. And --
24 A. I don't know if it's a good working definition. And if I
25 agreed with you that it was a good working definition, I don't
00127 { 3:50:16pm}
01 know that I would say, "Well, that's what the contact was
02 doing." I don't know.
03 Q. Did you say he was in a trance?
04 A. I only know what Dr. Sadler told me. He said he was
05 sleeping, the sleeping subject. He never used the word trance.
06 Q. But he was essentially functional while he was sleeping;
07 right?
08 A. What do you mean by "functional"?
09 Q. Was he writing while he was sleeping?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Was he communicating while he was sleeping?
12 A. Dr. Sadler went out of his way to say they never saw the
13 individual write.
14 Q. Did he communicate while he was sleeping?
15 A. There was -- verbally or in writing?
16 Q. Any way.
17 A. My understanding is that verbally, yes, there was
18 communication. You say did he communicate? My belief is he
19 was not communicating.
20 Q. And if that is channeling, The Urantia Foundation would
21 have no part of it; is that right?
22 A. If what is channeling?
23 Q. Sleeping, trance-like, meditative state, so that one would
24 be receptive to spiritual beings, if that is channeling and
25 that's what this person is doing, The Urantia Foundation would
00128 { 3:51:42pm}
01 have no part of that; is that right?
02 A. Well, that would be difficult for me to agree with that if
03 we go back to, of course, how the book came into existence and
04 given my belief system. You're trying to induce me to label
05 what he was doing as channeling and I'm not prepared to do
06 that. I really don't know --
07 THE COURT: Just move on.
08 A. -- what to call what he was doing. I choose not to call
09 it channeling.
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) How do you define inspiration?
11 A. What kind of inspiration?
12 Q. I'm inspired to write the Ninth Symphony.
13 A. Are we talking about intellectual inspiration, emotional
14 inspiration, genetic inspiration, theological divine
15 inspiration? What kind of inspiration?
16 Q. Let's talk about -- Let's talk about inspiration in the
17 hypothetical example. I'm Ludwig Beethoven and I say that I am
18 inspired to write the Ninth Symphony. How would you define
19 that?
20 A. Beethoven would have felt moved. Compelled, perhaps.
21 Q. Pardon me?
22 A. Compelled, perhaps.
23 Q. But --
24 A. Driven.
25 Q. Driven, compelled, moved, but writing the Ninth Symphony
00129 { 3:53:25pm}
01 in the context of his own resources?
02 A. I don't know. I can't speak for Beethoven.
03 Q. No, I'm talking about in our hypothetical situation. He
04 was inspired. That didn't mean somebody --
05 A. He may say that but it would depend on the individual.
06 THE COURT: Counselor, I'm having a great deal of
07 difficulty finding any value of this discussion to the issues
08 in this lawsuit. Now, get to something that has something to
09 do with the issues in this lawsuit.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay. Let me get to it this way, Your
11 Honor.
12 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you agree that if the patient
13 contact were inspired as I related the Beethoven hypothetical,
14 that he would be using his own resources to write out in
15 longhand this book?
16 A. I don't know. Maybe if he were awake when he did it, you
17 could argue that.
18 Q. Could people be inspired if they're asleep?
19 A. I'm not sure what you mean by expired -- inspired. I
20 asked you to attach an adjective to the word "inspiration."
21 But I don't think the patient was -- well, I wouldn't
22 characterize him as having been inspired. I'm going from what
23 Dr. Sadler said.
24 Q. I understand.
25 A. He was the sleeping subject. He had no knowledge
00130 { 3:55:08pm}
01 whatsoever of what went on during the verbal -- there were
02 verbal transmissions. And these written transmissions, I don't
03 know that I believe he actually wrote it, though it was in his
04 handwriting.
05 Q. I understand. But nobody saw him write it?
06 A. That's right. I went out of my way to ask Dr. Sadler,
07 "Did you try to find his -- see him writing"? And he said,
08 "Yes, we tried to spy on him and we were never able to see him
09 physically writing the book."
10 Q. As far as we know, he could have written it while he was
11 awake and inspired; is that correct?
12 A. Yeah, you could believe that if you want.
13 Q. All right. Is there any evidence to establish that this
14 patient was paid?
15 A. No evidence to establish that the patient -- excuse me --
16 the subj- -- the contact --
17 Q. I'm sorry. Is there any evidence to establish that the
18 patient/contact was paid?
19 A. There is no such evidence that I know of.
20 Q. Is there any evidence to establish that anybody was paid
21 with respect to the generation of the first tangible expression
22 in writing of The Urantia Book?
23 A. They were all volunteers, to my knowledge.
24 Q. Did you hear my question?
25 Is there any evidence --
00131 { 3:56:34pm}
01 A. There is -- Excuse me.
02 Q. May I?
03 A. Please.
04 Q. Is there any evidence to establish that there was any
05 payment made to anybody that produced the first tangible
06 expression of The Urantia Book in writing?
07 A. No such evidence that I know of.
08 Q. Was anyone paid by anybody to produce the writing that
09 took place?
10 A. No one that I know of.
11 Q. Are you well enough informed with the issues in this case
12 to address what Urantia Foundation has termed a work for hire?
13 A. That's a legal term and I'm -- I have a vague familiarity
14 with it but don't consider myself qualified to --
15 Q. If you were -- I'm sorry. Have you finished your answer?
16 A. -- to speak with any expertise what that means.
17 Q. If you were -- I'm sorry. I keep interrupting you. Have
18 you finished?
19 If you were to take the common understanding of the words
20 "work for hire" and apply them to the first tangible expression
21 of this book, is there any evidence to establish that it was a
22 work for hire?
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I object. "Work for
24 hire" is a legal term and we --
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
00132 { 3:58:27pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: -- and we --
02 THE COURT: Sustained.
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you have an understanding of that in
04 its common sense, outside of a legal --
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Didn't you just sustain my
06 objection?
07 THE COURT: Yes, I sustained your objection.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: May I proceed with this question?
09 THE COURT: Yes, but if you're going to ask him the
10 same question, it doesn't do me any good to sustain the
11 objection. The objection is sustained, counselor.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Now, ask him a different question. He
14 said he didn't know anything about "work for hire" as a legal
15 or a common concept and I sustained the objection to that
16 question.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
18 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, getting back to the process of
19 moving from handwritten transcripts to typewritten, how was
20 that done?
21 A. My understanding is that one member of the Contact
22 Commission read the manuscripts and then produced on a
23 typewriter the typed scripts.
24 Q. Who was that?
25 A. My understanding, it was Emma Christensen.
00133 { 3:59:39pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
02 his understanding. I'd like to know how he learned this. If
03 counsel --
04 MR. ABOWITZ: I can't hear him.
05 THE COURT: Restate your objection. I didn't hear
06 you.
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I would like to know how the jury
08 -- or how Mr. Keeler got an understanding of this since he
09 wasn't there.
10 THE COURT: Restate your question for my benefit and
11 for the benefit of the attorney.
12 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you know how the handwritten
13 manuscript got to be a typewritten manuscript?
14 THE COURT: Do you know how?
15 A. I don't know how but I have beliefs as to how it was done
16 and I was told.
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And that's the same information you've
18 been relating to me since we started this; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what is your belief?
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You have no information then based on
24 your knowledge of how that happened?
25 A. No direct information from anybody that did it but I was
00134 { 4:00:41pm}
01 told --
02 Q. All right. The Court --
03 A. -- that a certain member of the Contact Commission did it.
04 Q. The Court has sustained the objection.
05 Do you know why the handwritten manuscript was destroyed?
06 A. My belief is that the personalities, the authors of the
07 Urantia Papers, instructed The Contact Commission to destroy
08 the manuscripts after they had been type scribed.
09 Q. Why?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Now, this process of producing this book, we've talked
12 about the dates 1935 and 1936. The book was not published
13 until some 19 years after that; is that correct?
14 A. You said 1936. To my knowledge, none of the Urantia
15 Papers were produced in 19- -- in 1936. It was all, I think,
16 '33, '34, '35.
17 Q. All right. Whatever the date.
18 A. But they were not published until 1955.
19 Q. So, instead of '35 or '36, we're talking about a year or
20 two earlier?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So it was more than 20 years until they were published?
23 A. True.
24 Q. And do you know if this patient was alive in 1933, '34,
25 '35, that range?
00135 { 4:02:48pm}
01 A. I don't know that he was.
02 Q. Do you have a belief?
03 A. I believe that he was.
04 Q. And do you know if he was alive in 1955?
05 A. Dr. Sadler told me that there was communication through
06 the sleeping subject through the contact in October of 1955.
07 Q. But we've agreed before that there's no evidence to
08 establish that; correct?
09 A. None that I know of.
10 Q. All right. Sir, I've shown you what we've marked as
11 exhibit 83. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the
12 jury what that is.
13 A. It appears to be a book entitled Jesus - A New Revelation.
14 Q. Before we move on to that, sir, Mr. Keeler, do you know of
15 any evidence that would establish that the work of the
16 patient/contact was voluntary?
17 A. I have only my belief about that. I believe it was
18 voluntary. But I know of no evidence that would support --
19 certainly no written evidence that would support that.
20 Q. And what's the basis of that information?
21 A. My 1962 conversation with Dr. Sadler.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, with your permission, I'd
23 like to put that exhibit up on the screen, exhibit 83.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) That's the front cover of that. Does
25 the book explain what that painting is?
00136 { 4:05:22pm}
01 A. I don't know.
02 Q. Have you ever read that book?
03 A. No.
04 Q. Have you ever looked at it?
05 A. Yes. Not much more than I've looked at it right here.
06 Q. In a cursory fashion?
07 A. Very cursory.
08 Q. You've never examined its contents?
09 A. True.
10 Q. Can you look through there briefly and see if there's an
11 explanation of the painting on the front.
12 A. There appears to be.
13 Q. And what is that explanation?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Could you put that up on the screen,
15 please.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What page is that, Mr. Keeler?
17 A. There's no page number.
18 Q. If you count from the front, can --
19 A. It's on the third -- the reverse side of the second leaf
20 on the book.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: I think we've got to go back one.
22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What does it say with that?
23 A. It says, "Cover Art is Christ of Saint John of the Christ
24 by Salvador Dali."
25 Q. Does that painting appear in any of the -- either of the
00137 { 4:06:48pm}
01 exhibits of The Urantia Book before you?
02 A. None that I know of.
03 Q. Does it appear in any version of The Urantia Book that has
04 been published?
05 A. None that I know of.
06 Q. In any place?
07 A. True.
08 Q. Now, this book explains that it is a portion of The
09 Urantia Book, does it not?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Would you please turn to the page that appears on the
12 screen.
13 A. Okay. I've turned to that page.
14 Q. And it discusses The Urantia Book, does it not?
15 A. It appears to --
16 Q. And it --
17 A. -- mention The Urantia Book.
18 Q. And it discusses a reference section -- system that
19 relates to The Urantia Book; is that correct?
20 A. So it appears.
21 Q. All right. Please turn to the back of that book. Can you
22 tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that is?
23 A. The last page of the book?
24 Q. Well, the last several pages of it. Is it an index?
25 A. It appears to be a list of dates.
00138 { 4:08:18pm}
01 Q. Is there a portion of the book that is an index?
02 A. Oh, yes, the list of dates is the chronology. And before
03 that, there appears to be an index.
04 Q. And is that a portion, if you can tell by looking at it,
05 of the index that Mr. McMullan produced for The Urantia Book?
06 A. I don't know.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor?
08 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me show you exhibit 76. Do you
09 recognize that, sir?
10 A. It doesn't indicate if this is exhibit 76, you say?
11 Q. Yes, sir.
12 A. And what's your question?
13 Q. Do you recognize it?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you recognize it to be the index to The Urantia Book?
16 A. It appears to be an index to The Urantia Book.
17 Q. Was there an index to The Urantia Book produced by
18 Mr. McMullan or The Michael Foundation?
19 A. It is my understanding that he produced an index to The
20 Urantia Book.
21 Q. And who produced this book today?
22 A. It says it's published by Michael Foundation, copyright by
23 Harry McMullan.
24 Q. Is this the only index to The Urantia Book?
25 THE COURT: What was your question again, counselor?
00139 { 4:10:28pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: "Is it the only index?"
02 I'm sorry, Your Honor.
03 A. No.
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Is it the most comprehensive index?
05 A. I don't know.
06 Q. Do you know how many indexes there are?
07 A. No.
08 Q. Do you know whether the back portion of Jesus - A New
09 Revelation is a portion of this index?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Do you know or would you agree that the index portion of
12 Jesus - A New Revelation does not appear in any edition of The
13 Urantia Book?
14 A. I think that's a true statement.
15 Q. And would you agree that the comments on the back cover of
16 Jesus - A New Revelation do not appear on any edition of The
17 Urantia Book?
18 A. I believe that they do not appear -- they do not appear on
19 any version of The Urantia Book with which I am familiar.
20 Q. When was that book published, The Urantia Book -- I'm
21 sorry -- the Jesus - A New Revelation.
22 A. 1999.
23 Q. Was the -- Do you know how many copies of that were
24 published?
25 A. No.
00140 { 4:12:14pm}
01 Q. Do you know how many were sold?
02 A. No.
03 Q. Have you taken any steps to find out?
04 A. No. Do I know? I've heard numbers, I've heard several
05 numbers, but I don't know. I've been curious to know the
06 accurate numbers. I'd like out of curiosity to know from
07 Mr. McMullan, but I don't know. It's no longer being
08 distributed and made available at this time.
09 Q. Would you agree with me that the contents of The Urantia
10 Book that are papers 121 through 196 -- I'm sorry. Let me
11 start over.
12 Would you agree that the portion of Jesus - A New
13 Revelation that contains papers 121 through 196 of The Urantia
14 Book are true and correct copies of those papers as The Urantia
15 Book published them?
16 A. I think, as a matter of belief, I believe that they are.
17 Q. Have you ever analyzed it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Was there a time that Mr. McMullan corresponded with The
20 Urantia Foundation to offer them an attribution in that book if
21 it were published, Jesus - A New Revelation?
22 A. I think there was.
23 Q. And what was the reaction of The Foundation?
24 A. We decided that we did not wish to have -- that the
25 trustees decided that we did not want The Foundation to be
00141 { 4:14:32pm}
01 connected officially with this publication.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you give me a minute, Your
03 Honor?
04 May I have exhibit 36, please.
05 Take that off the screen.
06 May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
07 THE COURT: Sure.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: It doesn't appear that that comes up
09 too well. I can't see that. May I inquire if the jury can?
10 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: May I inquire of the jury if they can
12 see that?
13 THE COURT: Are you able to see that, ladies and
14 gentlemen of the jury?
15 MR. ABOWITZ: Can we blow that up?
16 Is that a little bit better?
17 A JUROR: A little, yes.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: How about that, is that better?
19 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I'll represent to you that's a copy of
20 an e-mail message from Mr. McMullan starting out from Gard
21 Jameson to Mr. McMullan. Tell us who Gard Jameson is.
22 A. He's a trustee of Urantia Foundation.
23 Q. Is the substance of that message in keeping with your
24 understanding of what happened?
25 A. I think so.
00142 { 4:17:32pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move that 36 be admitted, Your
02 Honor.
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Oh, we have no objection.
04 THE COURT: Be admitted.
05 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And it said, "I called to ask whether
06 Urantia Foundation would like to be cited as a publisher of The
07 Urantia Book on the publisher's preface of the Jesus edition I
08 am preparing. You thought it would be a good idea."
09 Was that matter discussed with the board?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did Mr. Jameson indicate to the board that that was a
12 good idea?
13 A. I don't recall that he did.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Could you scroll this up, please?
15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And the next paragraph is, "There's been
16 no word about this and I presume that it's not going to
17 happen." And the final message is, "Your presumption is
18 correct, it hasn't happened."
19 Did there come a time when the board finally and
20 absolutely rejected that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Why?
23 A. We didn't choose to be associated with Mr. McMullan's
24 publication.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that if somebody bought Jesus - A
00143 { 4:19:23pm}
01 New Revelation, read it, became interested in it, that there
02 would be a significant possibility that that person would then
03 purchase The Urantia Book?
04 A. I don't know.
05 Q. Did you ever contemplate that?
06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, asked and answered.
07 THE COURT: Sustained.
08 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Was there ever discussion at the board
09 level about that issue, whether it would generate additional
10 sales of The Urantia Book?
11 A. I don't think in an official meeting, but I believe that
12 it was informally among members of the trustees.
13 Q. Were you a participant in any of those informal
14 discussions?
15 A. Probably.
16 Q. What was discussed?
17 A. Well, we didn't know. We were -- we didn't know what the
18 result would be.
19 Q. The result in what sense?
20 A. There was some curiosity expressed. Notwithstanding that
21 we disapproved of his publishing it, we were curious, or I was
22 curious to know what might be the -- whether there would be any
23 demand for his publication and what that effect might be on the
24 sales of The Urantia Book.
25 Q. But no conclusion was ever arrived at in that regard?
00144 { 4:20:50pm}
01 A. True.
02 Q. And as you say, you essentially rejected that offer?
03 A. True.
04 Q. Was that ever formally communicated to --
05 A. I don't know.
06 Q. -- Mr. McMullan?
07 Did you communicate it?
08 A. Not that I recall.
09 Q. Were you communicating with Mr. McMullan during this
10 period of time?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You and he were friends at one time?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Stayed in each other's houses?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When did the friendship cease to be?
17 A. In 1989 I received a letter from Mr. McMullan telling me
18 with regard to my removal as an area coordinator, a personal
19 note from him saying with regard to that remove, "Good riddance
20 and words fail to express the contempt I feel toward you."
21 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. McMullan about that?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you have a conversation that preceded that?
24 A. What do you call precede?
25 Q. Preceding the letter, did you understand --
00145 { 4:22:11pm}
01 A. I think not. I think I communicated -- before I received
02 that letter, probably I communicated with him maybe a few
03 months before I received that letter.
04 Q. Why was he contentious of you?
05 A. Because the board of trustees made the decision -- well,
06 I'm not sure.
07 Q. Did you ask him?
08 A. No.
09 Q. Now, you say you were removed as an area coordinator?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Why?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Who removed you?
14 A. Mr. McMullan.
15 Q. And what organization is this we're talking about?
16 A. Urantia -- well, at that time the organization that had
17 been known as Urantia brotherhood then was no longer officially
18 affiliated with Urantia Foundation and they became known as a
19 group called The Fellowship, and so it was as a communication
20 from The Fellowship, I think, that I was removed as an area
21 coordinator.
22 Q. Let me see if we can avoid this confusion here. Mr. Hill
23 mentioned some of that in his opening statement. The Urantia
24 brotherhood was the successor to what?
25 A. In my view, it was the successor to The Forum.
00146 { 4:23:50pm}
01 Q. And The Urantia Foundation was the successor to what?
02 A. In my opinion, to The Contact Commission.
03 Q. That's what we call the Sadler team?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. So, if I've got this straight, the Sadler team became The
06 Foundation?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. The Forum, which was the larger group of people --
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- became The Urantia Brotherhood?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were the two organizations affiliated?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when was The Brotherhood founded?
15 A. 1955.
16 Q. And they essentially shared the house on Diversey Street;
17 is that correct?
18 A. True.
19 Q. For how many years?
20 A. From 1955 until 1989.
21 Q. And that's the year that you went on the board of The
22 Foundation?
23 A. True.
24 Q. So for some period of time you were on the board of The
25 Foundation and you were a member of The Brotherhood?
00147 { 4:25:12pm}
01 A. True.
02 Q. Did you have an official function with The Brotherhood?
03 A. No.
04 Q. What is the area -- Was the area coordinator some
05 official function?
06 A. Oh, I guess it was. I retract my former statement.
07 Q. Okay.
08 A. I was an area coordinator and it was an official function.
09 Q. And the responsibilities of an area coordinator were what?
10 A. I currently live in Wyoming and if there were readers of
11 The Urantia Book in Wyoming and I was informed of that and they
12 were interested in communicating with other readers, then it
13 was my job to coordinate and facilitate their communication.
14 Q. And at the time that both of these organizations were
15 under the same roof, there was an arrangement that they could
16 share the marks of The Urantia Foundation; is that correct?
17 A. True.
18 Q. What was the arrangement?
19 A. There was a written agreement between the two
20 organizations, The Urantia Foundation as the register of the
21 marks, owner of the marks, licensed Urantia Brotherhood to use
22 the marks on publications.
23 Q. And at that time was The Brotherhood the arm of the
24 Urantia movement that was responsible for the sale of The
25 Urantia Book?
00148 { 4:26:51pm}
01 A. Well, actually, I think it was not Urantia Brotherhood but
02 it was -- it was -- there was an official sales agent for The
03 Urantia Book. I can't remember the name. It was before I
04 became a trustee. And so it was not The Brotherhood but it was
05 very close -- worked very closely with The Brotherhood.
06 Q. So one of The Brotherhood's functions was to promote the
07 sale of this book?
08 A. To disseminate the teachings. It was in their
09 constitution that their job -- one of their jobs was to
10 disseminate the teachings.
11 Q. Now, when you moved on the board, a disagreement ensued
12 between The Foundation and The Brotherhood; is that correct?
13 A. Between the trustees and the leadership of The
14 Brotherhood.
15 Q. And the result of that was that The Foundation took away
16 the right of The Brotherhood to use those trademarks; correct?
17 A. True.
18 Q. And you dispossessed them from their offices in this
19 building; correct?
20 A. We asked them to leave.
21 Q. And they left?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you give them a choice?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Mr. McMullan was a member of The Brotherhood at that time;
00149 { 4:28:31pm}
01 correct?
02 A. True.
03 Q. Did he have an official function?
04 A. I don't know.
05 Q. Was he part of the leadership of The Brotherhood?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. And you say the differences were between the board of The
08 Foundation and the leadership of The Brotherhood?
09 A. That's the way I saw it.
10 Q. And you were a member of the board?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And Mr. McMullan was a member of the leadership of The
13 Brotherhood?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And is it accurate to state in that dispute that The
16 Foundation had the big stick?
17 A. We had the ownership of the copyright and marks. We had
18 the power to de-license The Brotherhood, which we did.
19 Q. And you had control of the building?
20 A. Say again?
21 Q. And you had control of the premises?
22 A. Well, we did. We owned the building. The Foundation owns
23 the building.
24 Q. So you took away the marks and you took away their office
25 space?
00150 { 4:29:40pm}
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. What was the basis of the dispute?
03 A. The president of Urantia Foundation at that time was
04 someone that the leadership of The Brotherhood found difficult
05 to work with.
06 Q. Mr. Myers?
07 A. Mr. Myers. And The Brotherhood decided, because, I guess
08 -- I wasn't involved at the time either as a trustee or I was a
09 member at large of The Brotherhood -- and The Brotherhood
10 decided that they were no longer going to share office space
11 with The Foundation; they were no longer going to share office
12 staff; they were no longer going to share the mailing lists;
13 they were no longer going to joint fund raise. And they put
14 that in writing, I would add, and they were no longer going to
15 promote goodwill for The Foundation. We saw that -- much of
16 that, most of that was in writing and we saw that as a
17 declaration of independence and we formalized the declaration
18 by saying we are now separate, separated. We are no longer
19 interdependent.
20 Q. You didn't like the independence statement, did you?
21 "You" meaning the board of the trustees of The Urantia
22 Foundation.
23 A. Well, I don't know -- I was barely on the board at that
24 time. Personally -- what's your question?
25 Q. My question was: As a member of the board of trustees,
00151 { 4:31:25pm}
01 the board of trustees of The Urantia Foundation didn't care for
02 this statement of independence, did they?
03 A. That's accurate.
04 Q. And Mr. Myers was somewhat of a despot, wasn't he?
05 A. Somewhat of a --
06 Q. Despot.
07 A. Some people would say so.
08 Q. And the letter that came from Mr. McMullan was after this
09 dispute?
10 A. That's true.
11 Q. And that was the end of your friendship?
12 A. In his mind or in mine? Or in his mind or in my mind?
13 Q. Well, I don't know that you can speak to his mind. Let's
14 hear what your mind is.
15 A. Temporarily, I suppose. I hope for a reconciliation one
16 day.
17 Q. Did you take steps in that regard, to reconcile the
18 relationship?
19 A. I don't know if you would define them as such, but I have,
20 yes, in my mind, I have taken steps.
21 Q. What are those steps?
22 A. Prayer.
23 Q. Other than that.
24 A. When I've been around Harry, I've always been friendly and
25 inquired about his family and his well being and I think I've
00152 { 4:32:40pm}
01 communicated to him that he is daily in my prayers.
02 Q. And he has done likewise; is that correct?
03 A. Well, you'd have to break it down. He has inquired.
04 Q. He's very cordial of you?
05 A. Yeah.
06 Q. He inquires about your family?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. And he's inquired about your health?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you tell him that you kept him in your prayers?
11 A. Yeah -- um, I think I have. I know that was conveyed to
12 him through somebody else. You would have to ask him.
13 Q. All right. Now, after The Brotherhood -- after this --
14 how would you describe this parting? Is there a word that you
15 would be comfortable with that I could describe it with?
16 A. Sad.
17 Q. Well, unfortunate or sad. But the parting itself, I was
18 going to use the word "schism." Is that a correct word?
19 A. I pronounce it schism.
20 Q. Schism. I'll accept your pronunciation.
21 Would you agree that that's a correct descriptive term?
22 A. That would be one accurate descriptive term.
23 Q. What happened to The Brotherhood after this?
24 A. They formed their own organization, an organization called
25 The Fellowship.
00153 { 4:34:24pm}
01 Q. Was that the whole name of it?
02 A. I think that was the only official part, but there was a
03 trailer: The Fellowship for Readers of The Urantia Book.
04 Q. And did the board of trustees of The Urantia Book object
05 to the use of that name?
06 A. I think not.
07 Q. Isn't there a dispute that is in the process of being
08 disposed of in which The Urantia Foundation objected to that --
09 to the use of that name?
10 A. Not that name. The Fellowship for Readers of The Urantia
11 Book, we never, in my opinion, objected to that name.
12 Q. What did you -- What is the dispute with The Fellowship
13 about?
14 A. The Fellowship changed their name, I think, two times
15 after that, and now they want to refer to themselves as The
16 Urantia Book Fellowship, I think, and we have felt
17 uncomfortable about their using the name of The Urantia Book in
18 their name.
19 Q. And did you sue them?
20 A. No. The Fellowship?
21 Q. Yeah. Yes.
22 A. With reference to that name?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you threaten to sue them?
00154 { 4:35:45pm}
01 A. I -- I would not say we threatened to sue them. We
02 encouraged to have negotiations with them and we recently
03 reached an agreement with them to license them use of a name --
04 well, that name, as a matter of fact.
05 Q. So, the dispute with them is being resolved and they can
06 use that name?
07 A. The Urantia Book Fellowship, yes.
08 Q. What is the relationship now between The Fellowship and
09 The Urantia Foundation?
10 A. Well, the relationship -- they are now a licensee of
11 Urantia Fellowship -- of Urantia Foundation, and our
12 relationship as individuals and organization is on the mend, in
13 my opinion. In my 12 years that I've never felt more hopeful
14 and confident about a raprishmal (sp).
15 Q. Now, The Forum -- let's get back to The Contact Commission
16 and The Forum, Sadler's team, Contact Commission.
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if I may, out of
18 respect, this was an organization that had a name. It was The
19 Contact Commission.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: I believe the witness referred to it as
21 the Sadler team, Your Honor.
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I think it was a descriptive term
23 that they had.
24 THE COURT: State your question, counselor.
25 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) With respect to the Sadler team, that
00155 { 4:37:46pm}
01 was the smaller group of the original two groups that were
02 functioning?
03 A. I'm willing to use that term. By the way, I prefer also
04 what counsel has said. I do prefer the name Contact
05 Commission.
06 Q. I apologize. I thought you had used that term.
07 A. I may have.
08 Q. I'm comfortable with using whatever term you want to use.
09 A. May we use "Contact Commission"?
10 Q. Absolutely.
11 A. Thank you.
12 Q. Now, The Contact Commission was composed of what people?
13 A. Dr. Sadler, Emma Christensen, Dr. Sadler's son: Bill
14 Sadler, and two Kelloggs, a Wilfred Kellogg and an Anna
15 Kellogg.
16 Q. Were they all somehow related?
17 A. Blood related?
18 Q. Yeah.
19 A. Oh, did I say Dr. Sadler's wife also?
20 Q. Well, before -- let's go through --
21 A. There was some --
22 Q. Excuse me. May I interrupt? Let's go through the list
23 and make sure we have them all now. Dr. Sadler and
24 Mrs. Sadler, Lena Sadler?
25 A. Yes.
00156 { 4:39:02pm}
01 Q. Who was a physician by the way, was she not?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. Bill Sadler, Jr.?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. The son of Mr. -- of Drs. Sadler?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. And Emma Christensen?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Any relation to the Sadlers?
10 A. No.
11 Q. The Kelloggs, Mr. and Mrs.?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Any relation to the Sadlers?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What?
16 A. Dr. Sadler's wife was a Kellogg.
17 Q. Is that the same as the cereal people in Michigan?
18 A. Not directly, but, yes, it is that family.
19 Q. Now, that was the group of people that originally
20 essentially -- well, I don't want to use my words. What was
21 their function?
22 A. The Contact Commission was under oath not to reveal the
23 identity of the contact and they worked with the contact for
24 some 50 years.
25 Q. Did they take any other oaths?
00157 { 4:40:09pm}
01 A. None that I know of.
02 Q. Now, there has been reference to a group called The
03 Forum. What was The Forum?
04 A. In about 1923, Dr. Sadler and his wife agreed that they
05 would have a philosophical society, a book discussion club
06 unrelated to The Urantia Book. People, friends of theirs,
07 associates, acquaintances, began to come to the house on
08 Sunday, I think it was, Sunday afternoon. And soon after that
09 started, I have the idea within a few sessions, that Dr. Sadler
10 told them something about this Urantia phenomena, and that's
11 all they wanted to talk about after that. They decided then,
12 in December of '23, or January of '24 I think was when The
13 Forum got started, and their function -- well, I think of their
14 function as being related to the statement made by
15 Dr. Sadler: no questions, no papers. They would ask questions
16 and The Urantia Book came -- the papers in The Urantia Book
17 came as answers to those questions.
18 Q. In the handwriting of the patient contact person?
19 A. That's my understanding, yes.
20 Q. How many people were in The Forum?
21 A. I think the total number at any one time, it was fewer
22 than 200 but people would move into and out of Chicago and join
23 The Forum and then become inactive members, I suppose, because
24 they moved out of Chicago. I think the total number was -- I
25 know it was over 300. It may have been over 400.
00158 { 4:42:33pm}
01 Q. Were those people required to sign some oath or affirm
02 some oath of secrecy?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. And what was the nature of the oath?
05 A. They took an oath to not tell any member of their family
06 or anyone else about The Urantia Book and what was being said
07 at these Sunday afternoon gatherings.
08 Q. Would you agree with the characterization that there were
09 rather stringent rules regarding communi- -- that no one was to
10 communicate what was discussed in these meetings?
11 A. That's an accurate characterization, I think.
12 Q. Is it a true statement, sir, between the time that that
13 Forum first began and the time of the publication of The
14 Urantia Book, that those stringent rules governing
15 communication of that group were in place?
16 A. I'm sorry. Would you repeat that?
17 Q. Yes.
18 Is it true that between the time The Forum was established
19 and the time The Urantia Book was published in 1955, that these
20 stringent rules developed by Dr. Sadler governing that there
21 was to be no communication about what they heard, saw,
22 observed, talked about in these sessions, remained in place?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did those people know of the identity of the
25 patient/contact person?
00159 { 4:44:27pm}
01 A. I was told by Dr. Sadler there were only six individuals
02 who knew and those individuals were the members of the Contact
03 Commission. Again, they took an oath not to reveal the
04 identity of the contact, the sleeping subject.
05 Q. As time went on, did any of the members of the Contact
06 Commission become board members of The Urantia Foundation?
07 A. Three of them did.
08 Q. Who?
09 A. Bill Sadler, Jr., Dr. Sadler's son; Wilfred Kellogg; and
10 Emma Christensen. They were three of the first five trustees.
11 Q. And who was the last surviving person in that group?
12 A. Emma Christensen.
13 Q. When, please, sir, did she pass away?
14 A. I think she died in 1982.
15 Q. And how old was she at the time?
16 A. '93, I think.
17 Q. And when was the last time she had functioned as a member
18 of the board of trustees of The Urantia Foundation?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Now, I'd like to change courses here for a minute and
21 briefly discuss other litigation.
22 You were on the board at the time of the Christian (sic)
23 Maaherra lawsuit?
24 A. Kristen Maaherra. Yes, I was.
25 Q. Kristen Maaherra. I'm sorry.
00160 { 4:46:47pm}
01 Was there more than one party to that lawsuit as a
02 defendant?
03 A. More than one party?
04 Q. Yes, sir.
05 A. There was Urantia Foundation versus Kristen Maaherra.
06 Q. And The Foundation brought -- instituted a lawsuit against
07 her?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Where?
10 A. In Arizona.
11 Q. Why?
12 A. She had duplicated the entire Urantia Book and put it on
13 computer diskette and distributed it using also the marks, the
14 three concentric marks on the white background, and also using
15 the mark on what she sent to people.
16 Q. And did The Foundation take a position in that case as to
17 why what she did was improper in their view?
18 A. We did. I was not that involved in such matters at that
19 time.
20 Q. So you cannot relate that to us today?
21 A. No. Or that's a true statement.
22 Q. Pardon me?
23 A. What you just said is true, that I could not relate to you
24 any detail.
25 Q. You are aware, are you not, of litigation involving a man
00161 { 4:48:18pm}
01 named Burton?
02 A. Barely aware.
03 Q. Are you aware, other than this lawsuit, the Maaherra and
04 Burton, if there were any other lawsuits involving Urantia
05 Foundation wherein the issue was either the trademark or
06 copyright?
07 A. I'm aware of two or three others.
08 Q. And can you relate those to us?
09 A. There was in Los Angeles a -- I think it was called
10 Urantia Massage and we asked them to not use our name for their
11 massage parlor. They refused to do it and we told them we
12 would ask a judge to order them to remove their sign and not
13 use our name.
14 Q. And hopefully you were successful?
15 A. And we were successful.
16 Q. Any others?
17 A. There was also I think a race horse that bore our name and
18 we asked the owners to not use our name or the name Urantia on
19 the race horse and he agreed to do that.
20 And there was, I think, a bar -- a restaurant/bar in New
21 Orleans, somewhere in the south, and my understanding is that
22 upon request the owners ceased using the name Urantia in the
23 name of their bar and restaurant.
24 Q. What was the name of the race horse?
25 A. I don't know. I don't know.
00162 { 4:49:57pm}
01 Q. You said "using our name."
02 A. Well, somewhere in the name of the horse. It may have
03 been called Urantian, but it might have been called Urantia --
04 Q. Some form of that?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. Were they followers -- were the owners of the horse
07 followers of the Urantia movement?
08 A. No. I think all of these cases to which I've referred,
09 they were nonreaders of The Urantia Book. They just heard --
10 in the case of the massage parlor, they heard the name and they
11 liked the sound of it.
12 Q. Was the horse at least a winner?
13 A. I don't know.
14 THE COURT: Counsel, let's recess for the day. You
15 ready?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
17 THE COURT: 9 o'clock in the morning be agreeable?
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
19 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll
20 be recessed until 9 o'clock in the morning. Be back here just
21 prior to that time in the jury assembly room. We'll try to
22 start very promptly. My bailiff will come for you.
23 I'll remind you again of my previous admonition not to
24 discuss this case. Don't read anything about it that might in
25 any way influence your determination in this case. Don't
00163 { 4:51:05pm}
01 listen to anything about it. Make up your mind with regard to
02 the facts in this case based upon the evidence that you hear
03 here in open court and nothing else.
04 Everyone please stand for the jurors to clear the
05 courtroom.
06 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
07 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
08 THE COURT: Court will be in recess.
09 (THE EVENING RECESS WAS TAKEN)
10 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME II)
11
12
00164 { 5:23:56pm}
01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
02 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
03
04 MICHAEL FOUNDATION, INC.,
04
05 Plaintiff,
05
06 vs. CASE NO. CV-00-0885-W
06
07 URANTIA FOUNDATION, et al.,
07
08 Defendants.
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 HAD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001
13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEE R. WEST, SENIOR JUDGE PRESIDING
13
14 JURY TRIAL - VOLUME II OF VII
15
16
17
18
19 A P P E A R A N C E S
20 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. ROSS A. PLOURDE
20 MR. MURRAY E. ABOWITZ
21 Attorneys at Law
21 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
22
22 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. STEVEN G. HILL
23 MR. PETER SCHOENTHALER
23 MR. ERIC MAURER
24 Attorneys at Law
24 Atlanta, Georgia
25
25
00165 { 5:23:56pm}
01 INDEX OF VOLUME II
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES (CONTINUED):
04 KENNETH RICHARD KEELER
05 DIRECT (Continued) (By Mr. Abowitz) ........... 168
05 CROSS (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ................... 274
06 REDIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) ..................... 336
06 RECROSS (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ................. 350
07 FURTHER REDIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) ............. 351
07 Witness Excused .................................... 351
08
08 HARRY McMULLAN
09
09 DIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) ....................... 352
10
10 **********
11
11
00166 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MORNING SESSION
02 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001
03 ---------------------------------------------------------------
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF
05 THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: The jurors are on their way. They should
07 be here very shortly.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: Can we call Mr. Keeler and get him on
09 the stand so we can proceed?
10 THE COURT: Sure. Have him come on up.
11 I don't know if he's getting a little too close to that
12 mike or what but I'm having some difficulty hearing everything
13 he says, and the court reporter tells me he's having some
14 difficulty.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I think he's tilting himself away from
16 the mike.
17 THE COURT: I don't want to harass him but he may
18 need to pull back just that much further from it. Just suggest
19 to him that we're having a little difficulty hearing him.
20 Good morning, sir.
21 THE WITNESS: Judge, good morning.
22 THE COURT: You can resume the stand. I'll remind
23 you you're under the same oath that was previously
24 administered.
25 I'm hard of hearing so I'm naturally having a little
00167 { 5:29:07pm}
01 difficulty hearing you, but the court reporter tells me he is
02 also. It may be that you're either too close to that
03 microphone or that you turn away from it occasionally when
04 you're speaking to the jury. I don't want to keep harping on
05 it, but, if you can, adjust it over that way a little when you
06 are speaking that way and it might help some.
07 THE WITNESS: May we test it right now?
08 THE COURT: You bet. You bet. Let's do that. I
09 think the small one is the one you want. It seems to be the
10 more powerful.
11 THE WITNESS: I think yesterday someone told me there
12 were puffings going on. Can you hear me all right now? Is
13 this better?
14 THE COURT: That's the best distance.
15 THE WITNESS: About the right distance here?
16 THE COURT: Yeah. Also, keep in mind that when you
17 look to the jury, as you can and should occasionally, be sure
18 to keep that microphone in mind. Would you do that?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. If I turn that way, then turn it
20 a little bit? Can you still hear me all right?
21 THE COURT: That will help some.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
24 THE WITNESSES: Okay. Six inches. Thank you, Judge.
25 THE COURT: Ask the jurors to come on in, please, and
00168 { 5:29:07pm}
01 I'll ask everyone to please stand.
02 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
03 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
04 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
05 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me inquire if
06 anything occurred during the recess that would prevent any one
07 of you from continuing to serve as a fair and impartial juror
08 in this case? I gather not.
09 You may resume your examination.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONT'D)
12 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
13 Q. Mr. Keeler, we discussed yesterday the situation that
14 caused the rift between Mr. McMullan and you, and Mr. McMullan
15 and The Foundation. I would like to pick up on that.
16 After that occurred, Mr. McMullan continued to be of
17 service and helpful to The Foundation, did he not?
18 A. To what are you referring?
19 Q. Well, let me show you exhibit 14, please.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor, rather than just
21 cart these books back and forth?
22 THE COURT: Sure, sure.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may I step over here?
24 THE COURT: Sure.
25 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you recognize that, sir, as an e-mail
00169 { 5:29:07pm}
01 that you got from Mr. Siegel?
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we
03 have it up here too. If it's more difficult -- I don't know
04 what's better to see.
05 A. This is almost three pages.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Well, is that --
07 A. It looks familiar, yes.
08 Q. -- something you got and it's addressed -- is this -- all
09 these people are trustees with the exception of Ms. Baney?
10 A. Say again.
11 Q. Yes, sir. Are all the --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- all the addressees, with the exception of Ms. Baney,
14 trustees of The Foundation?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this is essentially a matter that Mr. McMullan was
17 willing to assist The Foundation on with respect to the
18 proofreading of its text of the Urantia Book; is that correct?
19 A. I think so.
20 Q. And he was helpful on that, wasn't he?
21 A. I don't know if we accept his offer of help, but I do
22 recall, I think that he made such an offer.
23 Q. And the assistance that Mr. McMullan offered is the
24 essence of that three-page e-mail; correct?
25 A. Yes, I think so.
00170 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Thank you.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for the admission of exhibit
03 14.
04 THE COURT: Without objection, it will be admitted.
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: May I retrieve it?
07 THE COURT: Pardon? Sure.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: How procedurally do you want to work
09 with this? Do you want to leave the exhibits up here?
10 THE COURT: Just maintain the ones that are admitted,
11 turn them over to Bev, unless --
12 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I have a copy of the exhibits.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: She has a copy, so may I just
14 leave these --
15 THE COURT: Sure, just leave them up there.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, there was another matter that we
17 discussed yesterday, and that was the date of the completion of
18 the three parts of The Urantia Book. I'd like to show you, so
19 that we can clarify the day, I believe I had one and you had
20 one, and I confess your knowledge is superior to mine on those
21 dates and I just would like to clarify it for the Court and the
22 ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 43, please? It's
24 document number 1299. It's the second one. Again. Again.
25 That's it.
00171 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) That's a document that's on Urantia
02 Foundation letterhead, is it not?
03 A. It appears to be, yes.
04 Q. It is signed by Ms. E. L. Christensen, who at the time was
05 the secretary of The Urantia Foundation?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. The number 1299 denotes it came out of the files of The
08 Urantia Foundation?
09 A. I think so.
10 Q. And it's dated January 31st, 1974?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
13 Honor.
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
15 THE COURT: Be admitted.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you read, please, the last
17 paragraph of that letter.
18 A. "The first three sections of the book were completed in
19 1934. Section IV on the life and teachings of Jesus was
20 completed in 1935. This is stated in the book itself."
21 Q. Does that comport with your understanding?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Now, with respect to the work itself, we discussed, and I
25 believe left here yesterday, with you testifying that the book
00172 { 5:29:07pm}
01 was in the writing of the patient/contact person; correct?
02 A. We're talking part IV?
03 Q. We're talking the whole book.
04 A. It was in the subject's handwriting.
05 Q. All four parts?
06 A. I don't know.
07 Q. Well, yesterday you told me that everything in that book,
08 The Urantia Book, started out in the handwriting of the patient
09 contact person.
10 A. I'm not sure about part IV. I think it did but I'm not
11 sure about part IV.
12 Q. Do you have any evidence that would establish a different
13 conclusion, that is, that every part of that book was not at
14 one point in the handwriting of the patient/contact person?
15 A. No, I have no such evidence.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 Now, with respect to that writing, would you agree that
18 the writing of the patient/contact person that was generated
19 was -- could not have been related to hypnotism?
20 A. In 1962, Dr. Sadler told me it was unrelated to hypnotism
21 or any other psychic phenomenon that he was familiar with.
22 Q. Which would include trances?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Which would include telepathy?
25 A. Yes.
00173 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Which would include double personality?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. Which would include automatic writing?
04 A. Yes. These are terms I'm familiar with but I suppose I
05 would have to be a psychiatrist to give you a definitive --
06 Q. All right. May I show you exhibit 57, please. And I
07 apologize for the copy.
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I'd appreciate if they
09 don't put the page that lists all of the letters that are in
10 the summary exhibit because it has a title.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay. Will you please -- that's an
12 oversight, Judge. I apologize for that.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm looking at documents 240 and
15 document 1845.
16 May I, Your Honor?
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let's start with 240 and then we'll move
18 to 1845.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Is that 240?
20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 240.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you do something to that to enhance
22 the date on there, please?
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Excuse me. Do you have a
24 different Bates number?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Pardon me?
00174 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: I can't hear this, gentlemen.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm sorry.
03 THE COURT: Can you stipulate and agree what the date
04 is or not?
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I just don't have a copy of the
06 exhibit.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: It's in our exhibit 57. I'll be glad
08 to provide another copy to you.
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you make out that date, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And can you tell us -- it looks like April 11th, 1968?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is that on Urantia Foundation stationery?
14 A. I can't tell from this copy. It appears as though it is.
15 Q. Would you look at the number down at the bottom?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Does that number indicate it came from the files of The
18 Urantia Foundation?
19 A. I suppose so.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
21 Honor.
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
23 THE COURT: To be admitted.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you, please, sir, look at the last
25 paragraph of that letter. Incidentally, it's signed by Emma --
00175 { 5:29:07pm}
01 E. L. Christensen, secretary?
02 A. I cannot make out a signature on my copy.
03 Q. Well, this is the -- it reads, "Very truly yours, E. L.
04 Christensen, secretary"; correct?
05 A. True.
06 Q. As a matter of clarification, this is Ms. Christensen that
07 was a member of The Contact Commission?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And she subsequently became a trustee of the board of The
10 Urantia Foundation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that signature, that title of secretary, is that
13 secretary of the board of trustees?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. So she's speaking for The Foundation?
16 A. I think so.
17 Q. And would you read the last sentence of that letter,
18 please.
19 A. "The book did not come through a medium or by automatic
20 writing or any of the well-known psychic phenomenon. It was
21 written by superhuman personalities, all of whom are described
22 in the book."
23 Q. Would you please look at the next document, 18 -- I think
24 it's 43. Can you make out that number at the bottom?
25 A. 43 or 45.
00176 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. And is that number -- this is on -- do you believe this is
02 on Urantia Foundation stationery?
03 A. I think so.
04 Q. And, again, it has -- purports to have been signed by
05 E. L. Christensen, secretary, on behalf of The Foundation?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. And it's dated July 19th, 1968?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Would you read the first sentence of the second paragraph,
10 please.
11 A. "In response to your letter of July" -- it's 18 or 13 --
12 "we are sending you, under separate cover, a supply of
13 brochures containing excerpts from The Urantia Book. We are
14 also enclosing several copies of a summary of the book, as well
15 as a paper setting forth its basic concepts."
16 Q. Okay. So she is sending somebody -- somebody inquired and
17 she's responding to them?
18 A. It would appear as much.
19 Q. And please read the next sentence.
20 A. "This revelation was not received through a psychic,
21 clairvoyant or any such medium. I think a careful" -- I'm
22 having trouble reading my copy --
23 Q. That's sufficient.
24 A. -- "careful reading of the references" -- your copy is
25 better than mine but I'll continue with mine.
00177 { 5:29:07pm}
01 "I think a careful reading of the references contained on
02 the back of the dust cover" -- did you want me to stop?
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) No, go ahead. You can continue.
04 A. -- "back of the dust jacket, particularly those regarding
05 the Reserve Corps Destiny and the Secondary Midway Creatures
06 should satisfy your questions as to origin. We consider The
07 Urantia Book a religious document."
08 Q. Thank you.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you please remove the exhibit.
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, when Mr. McMullan first advised you
11 that through one of his foundations that Jesus - A New
12 Revelation was going to be published, what was your reaction?
13 A. I felt disappointed.
14 Q. With respect to the publication itself, did you consider
15 that to be improper because it destroyed the unified nature of
16 The Urantia Book?
17 A. That's a fairly accurate representation of my thinking.
18 Q. And as a matter of fact, The Foundation had taken a
19 consistent position over the years, had it not, that the book
20 was a unified work and one really had to read the whole book to
21 understand it thoroughly; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And, as a matter of fact, the board of trustees wrote a
24 letter to its friends taking that position, did it not?
25 A. I don't know to what you're referring --
00178 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. All right.
02 A. -- but it would not surprise me. We have consistently,
03 since The Foundation started in 1950, taken that possession.
04 Q. Who is Seppo Kanerva?
05 A. The manager of translations for Urantia Foundation.
06 Q. And Georges -- help me with the pronunciation of his name.
07 A. Michelson Dupont.
08 Q. He is a trustee?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. And was on August 29th, 1999?
11 A. Yes. A Frenchman, by the way.
12 Q. A what?
13 A. He is a Frenchman. Georges Michelson Dupont.
14 Q. That's why I asked you for help with the pronunciation.
15 Does he pronounce it with its French intonation or has he been
16 Anglicized?
17 A. He Anglicizes it when he's here.
18 Q. And doesn't when he's over there?
19 A. True.
20 Q. He's a resident of France?
21 A. True.
22 Q. Any communication between Mr. Kanerva and Mr. Michelson
23 Dupont would have been essentially the business of The Urantia
24 Foundation if they were discussing the book itself?
25 A. Yes. They are personal friends but most of their
00179 { 5:29:07pm}
01 interaction deals with matters relating to The Urantia Book.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: May we see exhibit 84, please?
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you recognize that as a communication
04 between the two people we were discussing?
05 A. Say again.
06 Q. Do you recognize this as a communication between the two
07 people we have been discussing?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And this refers to a draft of a letter from The Foundation
10 to its friends?
11 A. That appears to be the case.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
13 Honor.
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: To be admitted.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I'd ask you, sir, to look at the second
17 paragraph beginning with "Every reader." Would you read that
18 for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
19 A. "Every reader agrees that no alterations must be made in
20 the revelation; it must be preserved as it is for the benefit
21 of the current generation and the generations to come, for the
22 benefit of this part of the world as well as for the others.
23 In the wisdom and knowledge the revelators gave us this
24 revelation in four parts, each part being interrelated with the
25 other three; and this makes the revelation an indissociable
00180 { 5:29:07pm}
01 whole."
02 Q. Do you agree with that description, that the revelation is
03 an indissociable whole?
04 A. Well, if I had to say "yes" or "no", yes.
05 Q. And when they speak of the revelation, they're talking
06 about the contents and The Urantia Book; correct?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. Thank you.
09 Were you in Helsinki, Finland in 1998 for a meeting of the
10 International Urantia Association conference?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know a Mr. Gard Jameson?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And in 1998, at the time that the International Urantia
15 Association conference took place, what was his role in The
16 Foundation?
17 A. He was a trustee of Urantia Foundation.
18 Q. Just as an aside, is there a list someplace of who served
19 as a trustee of The Foundation and when they served?
20 A. I have seen such a list.
21 Q. How far back does it go?
22 A. To the beginning, I think.
23 Q. Let me show you, sir, what's been marked as exhibit 142.
24 Do you recognize this, sir, as the text of a talk by
25 Mr. Jameson at that International Urantia Association
00181 { 5:29:07pm}
01 conference?
02 A. May I see a copy?
03 Q. Yes. I'm sorry.
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, can we take it down
05 from the board until he lays a foundation?
06 THE COURT: Pardon?
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Can we take the document down from
08 the board until he lays a foundation?
09 THE COURT: Sure.
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you recognize that as the speech
11 given by Mr. Jameson?
12 A. It appears to be.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
14 Honor, 142.
15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I would only object to the extent
16 it appears to be a speech by Mr. Jameson. He didn't say he's
17 familiar with the document.
18 THE COURT: Restate -- or examine -- Lay your
19 predicate further, counsel.
20 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. Keeler, did Mr. Jameson give a
21 closing speech at that conference?
22 A. He gave a speech. I don't know if it was a closing
23 speech.
24 Q. He did give a speech?
25 A. That's my understanding.
00182 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Do you recognize that as the text of the speech he gave?
02 A. It appears to be.
03 THE COURT: And his position again, reestablish that,
04 counselor, for my benefit, with regard to The Urantia
05 Foundation, the speaker.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
07 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Who was the speaker? Is he a trustee?
08 A. Yes.
09 THE COURT: And he was a trustee at the time?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Go ahead. It will be admitted.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
13 You may put the document up, please. May I have the
14 second page, please?
15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me address you to this paragraph on
16 page 2 of 4, please. The paragraph that begins with, "There
17 are those." See that, sir?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It says, "That those, who in a spirit of impatience would
20 violate" -- "There are those, who in a spirit of impatience
21 would violate the integrity of the text by splitting it up."
22 And he gives an example, does he not, of what a publication
23 such as Jesus - A New Revelation would mean, does he not?
24 A. I think so.
25 Q. Well, read it until -- so that you may respond to the
00183 { 5:29:07pm}
01 question.
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. All right. And is it accurate to state, sir, that he is
04 using the Mona Lisa example to refer to The Urantia Book?
05 A. In an analogous way.
06 Q. Yes. So, he is saying that you cannot cut the Mona Lisa,
07 The Urantia Book, into four pieces and display only a quarter
08 of it at a time; is that correct?
09 A. That's what he says.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you scroll the document, please.
12 Please keep going. And the next page, please. I think that's
13 all I have of that document. Thank you.
14 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) In that analogy, The Urantia Book,
15 according to Mr. Jameson, a trustee at the time, could not be
16 presented in any separate fashion, no portion of it could be
17 presented separately without violating the view of the trustees
18 and The Foundation that this was an inviolate work, that it was
19 whole?
20 A. Yes, and we felt that it would be a violation of our
21 declaration of trust which states that we shall perpetually
22 preserve inviolate the text of The Urantia Book and to maintain
23 absolute and unconditional control of all production and
24 reproduction of The Urantia Book and translation thereof.
25 Q. In its entirety?
00184 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. Is that correct?
03 A. That's the way we interpret that.
04 Q. Thank you.
05 Now, did The Foundation issue a press release on July
06 22nd, 1999 to its friends indicating that part IV was illegally
07 printed?
08 A. You might have to show me the document. My recollection
09 is that we did release some announcement.
10 Q. Did or did not?
11 A. Did.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: May I?
13 THE COURT: Identify for the record what document you
14 handed him.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I handed you exhibit 87.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Does that appear to be the text --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- of that release?
19 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have the document, please? We
20 move for its admission.
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I object. I believe it's
22 hearsay. I don't believe Mr. Keeler was copied on it.
23 THE COURT: Let me see a copy of the document, if I
24 might, please.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you just look at this one, Judge?
00185 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Yeah, just let me look. It will be
02 quicker.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm not talking about the other text.
04 I'm talking about the text of the press release.
05 THE COURT: Your objection is that the press release
06 is hearsay?
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: As contained in that document,
08 Your Honor. That's not the press release. That is an e-mail
09 that has a press release in it.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: My question was: Did he recognize it
11 as the true text of the press release?
12 THE COURT: And your answer was?
13 THE WITNESS: It appears to be.
14 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. You may
15 recite the press release.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: May the document be admitted, Judge?
17 THE COURT: Sure.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you show the document, please.
19 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Please turn your attention, sir, to the
20 paragraph that begins with the words, "We see." You say in
21 2, "That it violates the statement that you just made, that it
22 does not preserve the text, the entire text, inviolate." And
23 that means the entire book; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
00186 { 5:29:07pm}
01 And The Foundation would take the same approach with
02 respect to anyone that published any single part of that book;
03 is that correct?
04 A. No.
05 Q. Well, if I went out and organized a foundation and
06 published part I, would you consider that to be a violation of
07 your tenant that the work is inviolate?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Part II?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Parts I and II?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Parts I, II and III?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Part III?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Parts III and IV?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So, as long as I didn't publish the whole thing, I would
20 have been violating the tenant that the whole work is
21 inviolate?
22 A. I'm sorry. I'm confused.
23 Q. All right. You agree, do you not, that in our
24 hypothetical discussion, that if I publish any single part of
25 that book, part I, part II, part III, part IV, or any
00187 { 5:29:07pm}
01 combination of the parts that did not include all of them, I
02 would be violating your tenant that the book is a work in its
03 entirety and that it is a work of a whole and that that is
04 inviolate?
05 A. Yes, but we have a fair-use policy that permits people
06 to --
07 Q. Well, I just want you to address the question I asked
08 you. We'll discuss that later.
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. You did not consider Jesus - A New Revelation to be a fair
11 use?
12 A. True.
13 Q. You would not consider it to be a fair use if in our
14 hypothetical discussion I published any single part of that
15 book, part I, part II, part III, part IV?
16 A. True.
17 Q. You would not consider it to be fair use if I produced any
18 part of that book in combination with every other part unless I
19 published the whole thing; correct?
20 A. I suppose so.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have a minute to get a document,
23 Judge?
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, let me show you what is marked as
25 part of exhibit 46, document 1055. I'm sorry. 146. 146.
00188 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Right. Let me start all over. Document 1055, exhibit 146.
02 Got it?
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yeah.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Sorry, Judge. Too many numbers.
05 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Please look at that, sir. Do you
06 recognize that as a letter on Urantia Foundation letterhead?
07 A. It appears to be.
08 Q. Does it bear a number 1055 that would indicate it came
09 from Urantia Foundation files?
10 A. No.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
12 A. Oh, I was looking at the number on the second page which
13 is 1056.
14 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me rephrase my question then.
15 Do you recognize it as a document of two pages bearing
16 numbers 1055 and 1056 that would indicate it came from the
17 files of The Urantia Foundation?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And who purportedly signed it?
20 A. Thomas A. Kendall.
21 Q. And he was at the time?
22 A. President of Urantia Foundation.
23 Q. The date of the letter, please, sir?
24 A. October 14th, 1975.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
00189 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Honor.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection, Your Honor.
03 THE COURT: Be admitted.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: May we display the exhibit, please?
05 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I'd ask you, sir, if that letter
06 accurately reflects the policy of The Foundation or did it at
07 the time with respect to the issues we've been discussing of
08 copyright and trademark?
09 A. I think so.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you scroll it up, please. Hold
11 it, hold it, hold it. Would you back it up to this --
12 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This document states that the Urantia
13 teachings must be free from compromise, distortion and mixture
14 with evolutionary error; is that correct?
15 A. True.
16 Q. Did you analyze Jesus - A New Revelation in the context of
17 that statement?
18 A. I didn't.
19 Q. Did anybody at The Foundation?
20 A. I think so.
21 Q. All right. So you can't tell us today whether the work
22 itself is free from compromise?
23 A. I cannot.
24 Q. You can't tell if it's free of distortion?
25 A. I cannot.
00190 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. You can't tell us if it's mixed with evolutionary error?
02 A. I cannot.
03 Q. The book, is it not, exactly what appears in papers 121
04 through 196 of The Urantia Book?
05 A. I believe that it is.
06 Q. All right. If that's true, is it free from compromise?
07 A. I suppose.
08 Q. Is it free from distortion?
09 A. If you look only at part IV, then I would agree.
10 Q. That's what the book is, isn't it, Jesus - A New
11 Revelation?
12 A. It's to the last -- it's 1,000 pages -- he has taken 1,000
13 pages from The Urantia Book --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I just have an answer
15 to my question?
16 THE COURT: Well, restate your question, counselor,
17 for my benefit.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Sure.
19 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Jesus - A New Revelation is free from
20 distortion in its text, is it not?
21 A. Well, if I had to say yes or no, I would say no.
22 Q. Why?
23 A. Because it's only part of the book.
24 Q. But the part of the book that's presented is free from
25 distortion, is it not? It's an exact reproduction of what is
00191 { 5:29:07pm}
01 in papers 121 through 196.
02 A. I think that it is. I think so.
03 Q. All right.
04 A. It's an exact reproduction. I think that it is.
05 Q. All right. And if it is, with respect to what's
06 presented, it's free of any distortion; correct?
07 A. You could say that.
08 Q. And it is not mixed with any evolutionary error; is that
09 correct?
10 A. I suppose so.
11 Q. Isn't it true, sir, if it meets the test of that analysis,
12 that it would be a fair use of the publication?
13 A. Not in my mind.
14 Q. I understand.
15 Now, let's move down a couple of paragraphs.
16 I call your attention to the paragraph that says, "By
17 protecting the copyright." One of the things the trustees want
18 to ensure is that it is the real thing, not an imposter, that
19 the text of Jesus - A New Revelation, is the real thing and not
20 an imposter; is that correct?
21 A. If I had to say it's the real thing or an imposter, it's
22 an imposter.
23 Q. All right.
24 A. And I will explain, if you would like.
25 Q. You have said it's an exact reproduction?
00192 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. True.
02 Q. And you're saying --
03 A. I believe it to be.
04 Q. All right. You know of no evidence to indicate that it is
05 not?
06 A. True.
07 Q. And you're saying it is an imposter because it is not
08 published in a book that you published with the other three
09 parts; is that correct?
10 A. Well, there was several parts to what you just said. In
11 general, I agree with what you said.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 Now, please move down to the next paragraph. "The next
14 time." "The next time."
15 Have you analyzed Jesus - A New Revelation for its quality
16 or lack of it?
17 A. As I said before, I have not.
18 Q. Has anybody at The Foundation?
19 A. I think so.
20 Q. Are you aware of their conclusion?
21 A. I think so.
22 Q. Well, are you or are you not? Did somebody say to you,
23 "Mr. Keeler, with respect to our policy regarding trademark and
24 copyright, we looked at Jesus - A New Revelation and determined
25 that it was of quality"?
00193 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. You said did someone say that to me?
02 Q. Yes.
03 A. No one said that to me.
04 Q. All right. And did anyone indicate to you that it
05 measured up to the high standards of Urantia teachings?
06 A. No one has indicated that to me.
07 Q. And if it's an exact reproduction of part IV of The
08 Urantia Book, it could not fall short of the high standards of
09 the Urantia teachings, could it not?
10 A. True.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: May I get some water?
13 Would you care for some, Mr. Keeler?
14 THE WITNESS: No, thank you.
15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me move on.
16 The Urantia Book is not a periodical, is it?
17 A. I don't see it that way.
18 Q. All right. It was never published in installments?
19 A. Not by Urantia Foundation.
20 Q. And was never published and made available to the public
21 on a periodic basis; in other words, one part here, one part
22 there, one part there?
23 A. Not to my knowledge.
24 Q. Even consecutively, it was not issued with respect to
25 paper 1 through paper 196 on successive weeks or in successive
00194 { 5:29:07pm}
01 months?
02 A. Not to my knowledge.
03 Q. And the only way it was made available was at one time in
04 that one book by The Urantia Foundation?
05 A. Well, not one time. We published many editions. The only
06 way that The Urantia Foundation has made it available has been
07 in book form with all four parts together.
08 Q. And it was made available only on that basis by The
09 Urantia Foundation?
10 A. I think so.
11 Q. All right. The book is not an encyclopedia, is it?
12 A. It is encyclopedic. It has religious content, historic
13 content, zoology, astronomy, psychology. It is a veritable
14 encyclopedic work.
15 Q. All right. What you're saying is it covers a number of
16 different subjects over the course of its 2000-plus pages?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And have you ever seen an encyclopedia that did not have
19 an index?
20 A. I don't know. I suppose not.
21 Q. That book didn't have an index until Mr. McMullan put one
22 together, did it?
23 A. Well, we have a concordance but not -- but not an index.
24 Q. My question was: It did not have an index until
25 Mr. McMullan developed one?
00195 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. It did not have an index published by Urantia Foundation.
02 Q. All right. So, for instance, if I picked up that book and
03 I wanted to reference a specific point, there's no place that I
04 can find where I could find that specific point in the book;
05 correct?
06 A. Yes, there is.
07 Q. Well, for instance, if I asked you to find a reference for
08 me to Sicily in that book, could you do that?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. How could you do it?
11 A. Two ways. Well, several ways. Two are coming to mind. I
12 would go to my computer and type in the word Sicily.
13 Q. And the next way?
14 A. I would go to the concordance published by Urantia
15 Foundation and I would look up the word Sicily.
16 Q. Now, let's talk about the second one. The concordance is
17 not part of the book; right?
18 A. True.
19 Q. The concordance was published when?
20 A. About 1993, '4 or '5.
21 Q. So, from 1955 to 1992, '3, '4 or '5, that technique was
22 not available to find Sicily; correct?
23 A. Not as a work published by Urantia Foundation.
24 Q. All right. Was it available by others?
25 A. Yes.
00196 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Who?
02 A. I know of an individual in Venezuela. There was something
03 close to an index called a concordex, a combination of a
04 concordance and an index.
05 Q. And when was that published?
06 A. Published in '70s, '60s or '70s. I'm not sure.
07 Q. Again, not a part of the work?
08 A. A derivative work.
09 Q. But not part of The Urantia Book?
10 A. True.
11 Q. When The Urantia Book was published, it did not have an
12 index or any other means for you to be able to find a given
13 subject, such as Sicily; is that correct?
14 A. Well, there was no index, no concordance, no concordex.
15 Q. The answer to my question?
16 A. Well, there were other means. If you were smart enough --
17 if you were smart enough, you could go directly -- you have an
18 index, there's a lot of information in The Urantia Book I could
19 go directly to because there is an index inside my brain.
20 Q. By virtue of reading it many times before?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. But if I am a first-time reader and I picked up that book
23 as it is, there is no way that I could find any reference to
24 Sicily in that book; is that correct?
25 A. True.
00197 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. All right. Now, also, have you ever seen an encyclopedia
02 that did not have attribution to scholars who put the works
03 together?
04 A. I don't know that I have.
05 Q. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia that was not arranged
06 in alphabetical order?
07 A. I suppose I haven't.
08 Q. Is The Urantia Book arranged in alphabetical order?
09 A. No.
10 Q. Do you know where an encyclopedia that exists where the
11 people who put it together were not paid?
12 A. I know of no such encyclopedia, but I have insufficient
13 information. In my opinion, they were probably paid.
14 Q. Nobody was paid to produce The Urantia Book; correct?
15 A. That's true. It was all voluntary effort to the best of
16 my knowledge.
17 Q. Now, if one went into the library, assuming it had The
18 Urantia Book in its collection, it wouldn't be classified under
19 encyclopedia, would it?
20 A. It would not.
21 Q. It would be classified under religious works - other?
22 A. Usually. I think almost always it is.
23 Q. So it is a religious work?
24 A. It is a religious work and much much more.
25 Q. I understand.
00198 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
02 THE COURT: You may.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Exhibit 47, please.
04 Documents 1537 and 1362.
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Murray, if I may --
06 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if I may address
08 counsel.
09 Your index to these letters does not refer to it by Bates
10 stamp number. Would you mind telling me who this is from and
11 the date?
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes. I'll have Mr. Keeler tell us that
13 in a second after he reads the document.
14 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. Keeler, let's start with Bates
15 number 1537. May I have a date, please?
16 A. July 15, 1966.
17 Q. And do you recognize that as a document that at the time
18 was published on Urantia Foundation stationery?
19 A. It appears to be.
20 Q. And does the number 1537 indicate to you that it came from
21 The Urantia Foundation files?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who purportedly signed it, please, sir?
24 A. Ms. E. L. Christensen.
25 Q. Thank you.
00199 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, as you know, we've redacted
02 the addressee which makes it a little difficult.
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Thank you.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
05 Honor.
06 THE COURT: Any objection, counsel?
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: One moment, Judge.
08 No objection.
09 THE COURT: Be admitted.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you put the exhibit up, please.
11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This is the same Emma Christensen that
12 we were talking about. How long was she the secretary to the
13 board?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Do you have an educated guess, estimate?
16 A. 20 years.
17 Q. Can you give us the approximate dates?
18 A. 1950 until 1970.
19 Q. I'd ask you, please, sir, to look at the second paragraph
20 of the letter, the last two sentences. Would you read those to
21 the jury.
22 A. The Urantia Book is primarily a religious tome. It was
23 written to save souls."
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you take the exhibit down,
00200 { 5:29:07pm}
01 please.
02 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Give me the date of the next letter.
03 A. June 14th, 1971.
04 Q. On Urantia Foundation letterhead?
05 A. I see no letterhead at the top.
06 Q. Is it signed by a person you recognize to be a person in
07 authority The Foundation?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And does it bear numbers that would indicate it came from
10 Urantia Foundation files?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. By whom is it purportedly signed?
13 A. Edith E. Cook.
14 Q. Now, that's a different name. Who is Ms. Cook?
15 A. She was at that time the treasurer of Urantia Foundation.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission, Your
17 Honor.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: To be admitted.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: May we have the exhibit, please.
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And how long was Ms. Cook the treasurer
22 of The Foundation?
23 A. Maybe 15 years.
24 Q. And can you give us the range, please?
25 A. 1970 to 1985.
00201 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Was there a procedure at The Foundation that when they
02 received -- when it, The Foundation, received correspondence
03 from interested people, that someone in authority of The
04 Foundation would respond to those letters?
05 A. Would you repeat the question?
06 Q. Yes.
07 Was it a procedure or policy of The Foundation to have a
08 person in authority respond to inquiries made by interested
09 people?
10 A. I think so.
11 Q. Did you ever respond to any of those letters?
12 A. I've only been a trustee -- since I've become a trustee?
13 Q. Yeah. Well, you couldn't respond to them as a trustee
14 before that, could you?
15 A. Certainly not.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. But there are other individuals in the office who were not
18 exactly in positions of authority who responded to
19 correspondence. We have someone in the office today who's an
20 employee but not a trustee and he is arguably not in a position
21 of authority. But before I was a trustee, I did not, and since
22 I've become a trustee, I have replied to a few.
23 Q. The persons who respond who are not persons of authority
24 do so with the acquiescence and approval of the board, do they
25 not?
00202 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. I suppose so.
02 Q. All right. But we don't have that problem here because
03 Ms. Cook is the treasurer?
04 A. True.
05 Q. I would just ask you to read the last paragraph, please,
06 to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
07 A. "After reading these, I am sure you will realize that The
08 Urantia Book is a religious book and has nothing to do with
09 so-called psychic phenomena."
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Judge?
12 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, we talked yesterday about the
13 original copyright of The Urantia Book indicating that The
14 Urantia Foundation was the author of the book. Do you recall
15 that discussion?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that's your understanding and belief and knowledge;
18 correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. And that was, again, so we can put it in a
21 time perspective, when?
22 A. The book is copyrighted at the time of publication, which
23 was October 12th, 1955, and that copyright was registered in
24 January of 1956.
25 Q. So we're talking 1956?
00203 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. Well, in the front of the book it says, "Copyrighted
02 1955."
03 Q. Well, then, let's use 1955.
04 And that copyright remained in effect until 1983 when it
05 was renewed; correct?
06 A. True.
07 Q. And we talked yesterday and you indicated that it was
08 renewed in 1983 as a work for hire; correct?
09 A. I think so.
10 Q. All right. What occurred, if you know, between 1955 and
11 1983 to change the characterization of that work that
12 The Urantia Foundation made to the copyright office?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Was there litigation that involved The Foundation between
15 the years 1955 and 1983 in which the issue of the copyright was
16 raised?
17 A. I think that there was.
18 Q. And if I indicated to you that there was, in 1974, a case
19 filed by Urantia Foundation in the federal court in California
20 against William Burton King and the Urantian Research --
21 Urantian school of Research and Doris George and a number of
22 other people, you would recognize that; right?
23 A. Barely. That was before I became a trustee.
24 Q. I understand.
25 Do you know the position that The Urantia Foundation took
00204 { 5:29:07pm}
01 in that case?
02 A. You would have to refresh my memory.
03 Q. All right. I'll do that.
04 Who was Mr. Root, Lloyd C. Root?
05 A. He was, I believe, the intellectual properties lawyer for
06 Urantia Foundation in the first 20 or 25 years, in the early
07 days after the book was published, and I believe before the
08 book was published.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, I have Plaintiff's Exhibit
10 Number 29, which is The Urantia Foundation brief in that case.
11 Strike that, counsel. That's not correct.
12 Well, let's move to that and we'll cover them both.
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) There was also a lawsuit filed by
14 Urantia Foundation in the Western District of Michigan, was
15 there not?
16 A. I don't know. Would you refresh my memory? To what are
17 you referring?
18 Q. I'm referring to Urantia Foundation vs. Robert Burton.
19 A. I know that there was a lawsuit between Mr. Burton and The
20 Urantia Foundation.
21 Q. And do you recall what position Urantia Foundation took in
22 that litigation --
23 A. No.
24 Q. -- with respect to The Urantia Book?
25 A. No. I was not a trustee at the time, and even now we
00205 { 5:29:07pm}
01 leave much of those matters to our legal experts and
02 paralegals.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, I have Plaintiff's Exhibit 29,
04 which is the brief in reply.
05 May I, Your Honor?
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, this is the plaintiff's response in
07 that case, Urantia vs. Burton?
08 A. It appears to be.
09 Q. Urantia Foundation is styled as the plaintiff?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is the plaintiff's brief?
12 A. It appears to be.
13 Q. I would ask you, sir, if in this case that the -- that the
14 patient/contact personality, that the position was taken by The
15 Urantia Foundation that the patient/ --
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may I approach?
17 THE COURT: Sure.
18 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
19 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, my only objection is
21 that he's making a statement Urantia Foundation took --
22 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He's making a statement Urantia
24 Foundation took a position. It was a summary judgment motion.
25 We had to permit them to argue their position and defeat them
00206 { 5:29:07pm}
01 for summary judgment if we got summary judgment.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: You write it down, it's a position.
03 THE COURT: Well, we're going -- he's going to have a
04 right to explain it was a legal position taken for the purposes
05 of summary judgment and so forth.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: That's fine.
07 THE COURT: And I'll have to instruct that he's
08 absolutely correct in that regard.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you?
10 THE COURT: And so forth.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: But it is a position.
12 THE COURT: Do you want me to do that?
13 MR. ABOWITZ: It's a position that they espouse.
14 THE COURT: It's a position that they took because on
15 motion for summary judgment you have to take certain positions
16 with regard to that thing and that they have the right to do
17 that. That is not their --
18 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't object to their right to do
19 that.
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Will you give an instruction to
21 the jury?
22 THE COURT: You prepare an instruction and I'll
23 consider giving it.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I would rather the instruction is
25 contemporaneous with the argument.
00207 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Well, I understand what you'd rather do
02 but I'm going to let them go ahead and proceed --
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It's your courtroom.
04 THE COURT: -- and then you prepare a proposed
05 instruction that I'll give at some subsequent time. I don't
06 want to attempt to do it offhand. You prepare a position and
07 I'll admonish them with regard to that.
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: All right.
09 THE COURT: I will tell them that there will be a
10 subsequent instruction with regard to, quote, taking the
11 position for the purpose of arguing on the motion for summary
12 judgment.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you like to do that before I ask
14 him?
15 THE COURT: Yes, I'll tell them. Well, have him read
16 that position and then I'll explain.
17 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
18 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
19 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, let me turn your attention, please,
20 to page 9.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: May we have that on the screen,
22 please? Would you scroll it down, please? That's fine. Let's
23 hold it there.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me turn your attention, please, sir,
25 to the last sentence on that page, "Since such writer."
00208 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Do you agree with me that the writer referred to in that
02 paragraph is the patient/contact personality?
03 A. I suppose.
04 Q. Well, --
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I would request under
06 Rule 1.6 -- or 106 that he reads the entire paragraph.
07 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Under 106 --
09 THE COURT: Okay. He's asking a question with regard
10 to the writer first. We'll focus on that right now and then
11 we'll get into your suggestion.
12 A. It would appear that that's what that is saying.
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) All right. And this paragraph,
14 beginning with the words, "The plaintiff," here, we've
15 identified the plaintiff as The Urantia Foundation; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And we've identified this as a position taken in that
18 lawsuit?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it says that you agree that the writer, the
21 patient/contact personality, had a common law copyright in what
22 he had written.
23 A. That's what that says.
24 Q. Do you agree that the only way he could have that is if he
25 was the author?
00209 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. I don't know.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Objection, Your Honor. Calls for
03 a legal conclusion.
04 THE COURT: Sustained.
05 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you have any understanding, sir, of
06 how the writer could acquire a common law copyright?
07 A. It's a legal matter. No.
08 Q. And this is consistent with your view and belief and
09 knowledge that he, the patient/contact personality, transferred
10 such copyright orally to Dr. William Sadler, Sr.?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Well, didn't you tell us that yesterday?
13 A. That what? That he transferred?
14 Q. Yeah.
15 A. He transferred such copyright orally? Well, you'd have to
16 read what I said yesterday, but I'm not seeing it. That's not
17 my understanding from my conversation with Dr. Sadler. What
18 actually happened was something different.
19 Q. But, nonetheless, this is the position that's represented
20 in this legal pleading before the board?
21 A. It would appear so.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Do you have something?
24 THE COURT: It's all right. Go ahead. We'll take up
25 the other matter when he reexamines his own witness here.
00210 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Are we at a place to take a break,
02 Judge?
03 THE COURT: This would be a good place, if you're
04 ready.
05 Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a 15-minute
06 recess. Be back in the jury box at 25 of 11:00 according to
07 that clock on the wall up there.
08 I'll remind you again of my previous admonition not to
09 discuss this case. Come back into the jury room so we can save
10 a little time in assembling and so forth. Be in the same seats
11 you are at 25 of 11:00.
12 Everyone please stand until the jurors clear the
13 courtroom.
14 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
15 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
16 THE COURT: Counsel might have a hand at drafting a
17 cautionary instruction with regard to the motion for summary
18 judgment and then show it to counsel and see if they have any
19 problems with it, and I can then give that when we get back in,
20 if it's appropriate.
21 Another way to do it would be to allow you to bring the
22 matter up when -- if you're going to examine this witness on
23 your -- I don't know if they call it cross-examination because
24 it's going to be cross-exam of an adverse witness, but you
25 could reorient him with regard to that at that time.
00211 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I intend to do so, Your Honor, but
02 I would still like the instruction.
03 THE COURT: You give me a proposed cautionary
04 instruction and I'll consider giving it or letting you take it
05 up at a subsequent time, one or the other.
06 All right. Court's in recess.
07 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
08 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
09 THE JURY:)
10 THE COURT: You may resume, Mr. Abowitz.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. May I approach
12 the witness?
13 THE COURT: Did you have something you want to
14 present?
15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes. Mr. Plourde has objection to
16 it. Mr. Plourde has objection to one of the paragraphs. I
17 think we should approach, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: All right. Come on up. We'll take that
19 up.
20 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
21 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He does not have an objection to
23 the first paragraph.
24 THE COURT: And your objection is to what?
25 MR. PLOURDE: To the last paragraph, Judge. I don't
00212 { 5:29:07pm}
01 think it's true that --
02 THE COURT: There's nothing wrong with that. That's
03 exactly what happened. Now, if you all want this in, that's
04 the instruction I'm going to give.
05 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, they weren't -- I mean --
06 THE COURT: If you want this argument, that's their
07 position. If you want it in, they've asked the question and
08 they've never gotten the answer.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: They showed him the reply brief we
10 filed up on the screen.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: That's fine.
12 THE COURT: Okay. When do you want it?
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'd like it now.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may we make a record?
15 THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead and do it now. I'm going
16 to give it exactly as it is.
17 MR. PLOURDE: Okay. If you would just note our
18 objection to the giving of that. I think the last paragraph is
19 particularly wrong. In any event, note our objection.
20 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
21 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
22 THE COURT: The Court will give the jury a cautionary
23 instruction with regard to the point being made that that was
24 the position taken in previous litigation. When a party argues
25 in favor of a motion for summary judgment, which is a motion
00213 { 5:29:07pm}
01 that a party brings before the Court asking for judgment as a
02 matter of law, the moving party must give the opposing party
03 the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from
04 the evidence. In Urantia Foundation vs. Burton, the case that
05 has been discussed by counsel with the witness, Urantia
06 Foundation had moved for summary judgment asking the Court for
07 judgment as a matter of law as to the validity of its copyright
08 in The Urantia Book. In order to succeed on Urantia
09 Foundation's motion for summary judgment, Urantia Foundation
10 was required to accept the proposition that the subject of the
11 contact patient was the author."
12 You may proceed.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: For the record, Your Honor, I forgot to
14 move for its admittance, 29.
15 THE COURT: Any objection?
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Which exhibit?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: 29.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
19 THE COURT: Be admitted. It is admitted.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor?
21 THE COURT: Sure.
22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) We were discussing the lawsuit by
23 Urantia Foundation against William Burton King.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Could you put that up on the screen,
25 please?
00214 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) It's the motion for summary judgment
02 memorandum of points.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't think that's it.
04 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 29?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me. We'll do it this way.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, do you recognize that as the
07 lawsuit we were discussing?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Urantia Foundation is the plaintiff in that case?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The document bears a certification of the archives of the
12 United States Government that that's a true and correct copy of
13 that document?
14 A. Appears to be.
15 Q. And it is represented on the first page that Urantia's
16 lawyer in that case was Mr. Root; correct?
17 A. True.
18 Q. And the pleading is signed by a representative of that
19 firm on behalf of Urantia Foundation?
20 A. True.
21 Q. Do you recall the position that was taken by The Urantia
22 Foundation in this litigation?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was it?
25 A. Our position in this litigation and all litigation has
00215 { 5:29:07pm}
01 been that the authors of the Urantia Book are celestial;
02 however, in this particular case, Mr. Burton -- and this
03 relates to what the Judge said a minute ago -- Mr. Burton
04 contended that the sleeping subject was the author of the book
05 and we said -- we accepted that. We said, "Okay, we will
06 suppose that you're right even if he were the author of the
07 book." We believe it's celestially authored, but even if he is
08 the author of the book, our contention was that we would still
09 own the copyright because The Contact Commission was always in
10 possession of the papers. The Contact Commission solicited the
11 questions, The Contact Commission received the papers, dealt
12 with the papers, published the papers. There was never anyone
13 who challenged The Urantia Foundation -- excuse me -- The
14 Contact Commission and then the successor to The Contact
15 Commission was The Urantia Foundation.
16 Q. I understand.
17 A. There's an old principle that, what, possession is
18 nine/tenths of the law, and we contended in that case and have
19 always contended that The Contact Commission and the successor
20 to The Contact Commission, Urantia Foundation, was in
21 possession of the papers from beginning to end.
22 Q. They weren't in possession of the papers when they were
23 being written, were they?
24 A. Well, soon after. Dr. Sadler told me the morning after
25 papers appeared --
00216 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Please, sir, answer my question. They were not in
02 possession of the papers when they were written; is that
03 correct?
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I think the witness is
05 trying to answer the question.
06 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question.
07 A. Well, I guess not in the first few hours. They would
08 appear, my understanding is, in a drawer, I think, in a desk,
09 and it was in Dr. Sadler's office.
10 Q. Let me ask the question again.
11 Did The Contact Commission have possession of the papers
12 when they were being written?
13 A. Not at the absolute instant that they -- I don't know but
14 that's my understanding, they did not.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor?
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I would ask you, please, to turn to page
18 51. Let me see if I can do it this way.
19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Murray, is this still 29?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Yeah, but page 51.
21 MR. PLOURDE: 126.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: No, no. It's 126. I'm sorry.
23 Can you see that? Okay? It's like adjusting the trim
24 tabs on an airplane.
25 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you have that in front of you, sir,
00217 { 5:29:07pm}
01 page 51?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. All right. The Urantia Foundation admits in this position
04 that it took that for the purposes of the copyright, that the
05 writer is the author and the owner of the common law copyright;
06 is that correct?
07 A. That's what it says here, uh-huh.
08 Q. So he is the author -- the patient, contact person, is
09 author, owner of the common law copyright?
10 A. That was the position that Mr. Burton took and we were
11 requesting summary judgment and we said, for the sake of
12 argument, we will --
13 Q. May I interrupt? This is Burton King. Did you understand
14 that? This is not Burton.
15 A. Burton King. Yes, sorry.
16 Q. All right. This is the written position taken by The
17 Urantia Foundation in this case?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I retrieve the exhibit?
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, the position that The Foundation
22 took with the renewal was that the book was a work for hire;
23 we've talked about that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that position was taken in 1983 which was after the
00218 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Burton King and the Burton lawsuits; is that correct?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And did The Urantia Foundation maintain that view in the
04 Maaherra litigation?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. That it was --
07 A. At the beginning of the Maaherra litigation.
08 Q. Did it change?
09 A. There was some movement from calling it a work for hire to
10 being a composite work.
11 Q. All right. What is it today? What is the position today?
12 A. That it is a composite work.
13 Q. Is it the position today that it's a commissioned work?
14 A. A commissioned work? What do you mean?
15 Q. I'm sorry?
16 A. Commissioned?
17 Q. Yes. Was the work commissioned?
18 A. Would you define "commissioned"?
19 Q. Well, let me back up.
20 Do you have an understanding of what Urantia Foundation's
21 position is in this lawsuit?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it is what?
24 A. That The Urantia Book is a composite work. The Urantia
25 Book itself is a composite presentation by many beings.
00219 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. All right. Do you know if The Urantia Foundation is
02 taking the position that it is -- that it is a commissioned
03 work, as your lawyer said here the other day in his opening
04 statement?
05 A. Well, if he said that, that is our position.
06 Q. All right. Do you have any understanding of that?
07 A. Well, some, I guess, but I would need to be -- to have my
08 memory refreshed as to what exactly "commissioned" means.
09 Q. Well, please tell us your understanding.
10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I think this is really
11 getting into the area of --
12 THE COURT: Sustained. I believe his understanding
13 doesn't make any difference, counselor. What his understanding
14 of it is, it's a legal position they're taking and the counsel
15 will express that legal expression or has in the opening
16 statement.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: May I ask what his understanding of
18 "commissioned" is, Your Honor?
19 THE COURT: What relevance does it have to this
20 lawsuit, counselor?
21 MR. ABOWITZ: That's the position they're taking here
22 and I would like to know if he knows what that is.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, he's not asking for
24 his understanding. He's trying to get a legal position out of
25 him.
00220 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: He's what? Pardon?
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He's asking for his legal
03 conclusion of what "commissioned" means.
04 THE COURT: Then I don't know what the difference
05 between his legal conclusions and his understanding would be,
06 counselor.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, he doesn't have a legal
08 conclusion, Judge.
09 THE COURT: Well, he said he doesn't have any
10 understanding either.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: All right. That's fine.
12 THE COURT: Go ahead. Move on to something else,
13 counselor. You're trying to get something from an adverse
14 witness that we can spend a lot of time on but I don't think
15 it's relevant to the issues in this lawsuit.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You indicated earlier that The Urantia
18 Foundation is of the view that spiritual beings initiated
19 communication through the patient/contact personality?
20 A. Yes, but let me make a distinction. I regard everyone in
21 this room as being a spiritual being, so I feel more
22 comfortable with the term "celestial beings."
23 Q. And what's the distinction?
24 A. Meaning invisible to us, nonphysical in the way that we
25 think of physical.
00221 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Not human; is that a --
02 A. Nonhuman. Celestial beings.
03 Q. Do you agree that the patient/contact person voluntarily
04 appeared to place himself under the examination of Dr. Sadler
05 for whatever malady he was suffering at the time?
06 A. That's what I was told by Dr. Sadler.
07 Q. And this wasn't a case where Dr. Sadler went out and
08 looked for this person and said, "You're the one and I'm going
09 to use you for this purpose"?
10 A. True.
11 Q. And there isn't any evidence that you know of, is that
12 correct, that Dr. Sadler or anyone else in The Contact
13 Commission told the celestial beings what messages to convey
14 that resulted in this writing?
15 A. True, but I would make a qualifying statement --
16 Q. Well, --
17 A. -- if I were asked for such a statement.
18 Q. -- your lawyer will let you qualify it.
19 And you are not aware, are you, of any evidence that
20 Dr. Sadler or anyone else told the celestial beings what to
21 communicate to the patient/contact personality?
22 A. By asking questions. No questions, no papers.
23 Indirectly, they told through asking -- they told the celestial
24 beings what to write.
25 Q. They asked. They were questions; right?
00222 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. They asked questions.
02 Q. All right. Now, they had no control over how the
03 questions were answered; is that your --
04 A. True.
05 Q. They had no control over whether or not someone chose to
06 answer or not to answer the questions?
07 A. I agree with that statement.
08 Q. All right. And you know of no evidence that indicated
09 that Dr. Sadler or The Contact Commission or anyone that could
10 be considered to be a predecessor of The Urantia Foundation
11 told the celestial beings or directed the celestial beings that
12 this was the end of the book?
13 A. I know of no such evidence.
14 Q. And if the communication was the basis of the book,
15 communication from celestial beings was the basis for the book,
16 the decision as to how much and what and when to end it was all
17 the decision of these celestial beings?
18 A. I agree.
19 Q. Now, the book was finished -- we had that exhibit -- '35,
20 but it wasn't published until 1955; is that correct?
21 A. True.
22 Q. And is one of the reasons it wasn't published -- is your
23 view that one of the reasons it wasn't published that you were
24 waiting for the celestial beings to tell you what the right
25 time was?
00223 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. That's one reason.
02 Q. And is it accurate, sir, that in your view of these
03 things, that the celestial beings controlled the process of
04 producing the book?
05 A. For the most part, but in cooperation with The Contact
06 Commission.
07 Q. Well, let's address that. You've indicated that there was
08 no control over how they answered the questions?
09 A. True.
10 Q. There was no control by Dr. Sadler or The Contact
11 Commission or anybody that was a predecessor to The Urantia
12 Foundation that dictated to these celestial beings what would
13 be in the book?
14 A. True.
15 Q. Same introduction, how long the book would be?
16 A. True.
17 Q. Same introduction, how many papers it would consist of?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Same question, what the subject of the papers were?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Same introduction, the content of the specific papers?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the direction, if you will, with respect to
24 The Urantia Foundation's belief and views and knowledge of how
25 this took place is that the direction came from the celestial
00224 { 5:29:07pm}
01 beings to the patient/contact personality and told him to write
02 and to stop writing?
03 A. Yes.
04 I want to clarify something. I'm feeling uncomfortable
05 about that answer. The only thing I know is Dr. Sadler told me
06 it was in the handwriting of the sleeping subject.
07 Q. I think you made that clear.
08 A. All right.
09 Q. Let me ask it a different way so maybe I can clear up your
10 concern.
11 Dr. Sadler -- Neither Dr. Sadler nor the Contact
12 Commissioners, nor anyone else that was a predecessor of The
13 Urantia Foundation, controlled the writing process, whatever it
14 was?
15 A. I agree with that.
16 Q. All right. Does that make your more comfortable?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the bench, Your Honor?
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, I'm going to talk about the
22 Root exhibit.
23 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
24 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
25 THE COURT: This is about what?
00225 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: The Root -- the lawyer Root, Lloyd
02 Root.
03 THE COURT: Go ahead.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: We're going to offer this into
05 admission. It is a poor copy. It is --
06 THE COURT: I can't read it.
07 Okay. You want to introduce it for what purpose?
08 MR. ABOWITZ: To show that the position of The
09 Urantia Foundation, that this is not a collective work.
10 THE COURT: And he was an attorney for The Urantia
11 Foundation in the Maaherra -- or in the --
12 MR. ABOWITZ: No, no. In the Burton King. This is a
13 document that is filed with the United States Copyright
14 Office. It is an ancient --
15 THE COURT: What's your position with regard to Root?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: May I finish my foundation?
17 It is an ancient document. They admitted it is genuine.
18 And I think under the exception -- the ancient document
19 exception to hearsay, it should be admissible.
20 MR. HILL: Well, Your Honor, the document is -- I
21 don't have any problem --
22 THE COURT: I'm having a little difficulty --
23 MR. HILL: I don't have any problem with it coming
24 into evidence but I don't think they can discuss an ancient
25 document with someone who's not familiar. Mr. Keeler wasn't on
00226 { 5:29:07pm}
01 the board. He wasn't a trustee at that time. There's no
02 evidence in this case one way or the other that Mr. Root was
03 even authorized or what he was writing this in response to.
04 This is not a garden variety letter to the United States
05 Copyright Office. So we object to putting an ancient document
06 in front of this witness solely for the purpose of having him
07 read the contents.
08 If Your Honor permits them to do it, I'm going to come
09 back later and ask that what's good for the goose be good for
10 the gander.
11 THE COURT: All right. Now, let me ask you this:
12 Are you agreeing to the admission of this document but
13 requesting that counsel read it rather than this witness read
14 it? Is that what you're saying?
15 MR. HILL: If that's how -- Your Honor, this is
16 probably the first of a number of ancient documents --
17 THE COURT: You don't want him to appear in any way
18 as sponsoring this document or identifying it either; is that
19 correct?
20 MR. HILL: I don't think he can --
21 THE COURT: But you're not objecting to the
22 admissibility of it?
23 MR. HILL: -- answer any questions about it.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm sorry?
25 MR. HILL: I don't think he has ever seen it. I
00227 { 5:29:07pm}
01 don't think he can answer any questions about it.
02 THE COURT: It's admitted without objection. If you
03 want to read it, you read it yourself and ask for no comment
04 from him with regard to what --
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Can I ask him if he understands that
06 that was done at the time?
07 MR. HILL: Your Honor, am I to understand -- I'm
08 objecting to Mr. Abowitz reading the ancient document into the
09 record unless we have an agreement that for an ancient
10 documents that are introduced as they're introduced, they can
11 be read both ways.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Sure.
13 MR. HILL: Okay.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
16 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
17 THE COURT: The document will be admitted and you may
18 publish it to the jury, if you wish to do so, counselor.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
20 May I have exhibit 9, please?
21 Can you put some background on it?
22 Ladies and gentlemen, I'm authorized to tell you that the
23 Court has admitted this exhibit 9. It is a very poor copy. We
24 have gone through it and produced exhibit 10 which is a reading
25 of that document and it is, if I may, a much better rendition
00228 { 5:29:07pm}
01 of the document.
02 May I have exhibit 10, please?
03 I would ask you to scroll the document, please. That's
04 fine. Would you highlight the part that says, "The Urantia
05 Book." No, the next paragraph.
06 This document says, in part, "The Urantia Book is not a
07 collective work, since the material therein was not in
08 existence before the arrangement of it was placed in tangible
09 form, and it was in existence prior to publication thereof only
10 in manuscript form."
11 Would you scroll up to the beginning, please.
12 This is the affidavit of Lloyd C. Root.
13 THE COURT: Can you ladies and gentlemen hear him?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: This is the affidavit of Lloyd C. Root
15 who states that he is the attorney for The Urantia Foundation.
16 Would you give us the second page, please.
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may I?
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Stop there. There we go.
19 And it is signed by Lloyd C. Root and subscribed February
20 of 1980.
21 Would you go back to the first page, please. Highlight
22 the last paragraph.
23 The affidavit further states in the last sentence on the
24 first page, "That there was a common law copyright in the said
25 manuscript which was owned by the person who wrote it."
00229 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Thank you.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may I address counsel?
03 THE COURT: Pardon?
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I address counsel for a
05 second?
06 THE COURT: Sure.
07 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. Keeler, --
08 A. Yes, sir.
09 Q. -- you told us earlier that Mr. Root was a long-time
10 lawyer -- a lawyer, who, for a long period of time, represented
11 the interests of The Urantia Foundation in copyright matters?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. He was a distinguished lawyer?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Well, there's a plaque --
16 A. I hope so.
17 Q. Yeah, okay. There is a plaque to his memory, is there
18 not, in The Urantia Foundation building?
19 A. True.
20 Q. In appreciation for his services?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 Now, with respect to the work for hire, have you
24 personally -- strike that. Let me start again.
25 With respect to the work for hire position, have you ever
00230 { 5:29:07pm}
01 communicated to anyone with respect to that position?
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor -- well, no objection.
03 Sorry, Murray.
04 THE COURT: Go ahead. You may answer, if you can.
05 A. I don't know.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Did you, on June 25th, 1999, send an
07 e-mail regarding this position to one Toby Tapp? May I show
08 that to you?
09 A. Yes, please.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Counselor, it's 89.
11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you please read that.
12 A. Read what?
13 Q. I would like you to read the -- are you satisfied that
14 that's a communication you made?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And made it on or about the date it's listed there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And made it as a trustee of The Urantia Foundation?
19 A. Well, I was a trustee of Urantia Foundation.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move it be admitted, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Have any objection?
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the clerk, Your Honor?
25 We're trying to do some housekeeping.
00231 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Sure.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
03 THE COURT: Be admitted.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you put it up on the screen,
05 please.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What was the purpose for this
07 communication?
08 A. I think I received an e-mail from Mr. Tapp.
09 Q. Who is Mr. Tapp?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Do you people normally communicate with you on e-mail?
12 A. I don't know that -- some people do.
13 Q. All right.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you scroll it, please.
15 Hold it.
16 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me address you, please, sir, to the
17 paragraph beginning, "Toby." That's a statement that you made
18 and it's correct that in 1983 The Foundation chose to renew the
19 copyright characterizing the book as a work for hire; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And then you explain that. "This was done because William
22 S. Sadler, Jr.," -- and that's not Dr. Sadler; correct?
23 A. True.
24 Q. That's Dr. Sadler's son?
25 A. True.
00232 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. -- "was also on The Contact Commission"?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. -- "working for hire for The Foundation as it were,
04 designed the first 66 pages of The Urantia Book, the pages
05 numbered at the bottom with roman numerals, and that these 66
06 pages comprise of the fly sheet, the title sheet, the parts of
07 the book, the titles of the papers and the contents of the
08 book."
09 Did I read that correctly?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is that the only basis for The Foundation of choosing to
12 renew the copyright under the characterization of work for
13 hire?
14 A. I don't know.
15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, that calls for a legal
16 conclusion.
17 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) All right.
20 A. After I wrote that, I wished that I had cleared it with
21 our lawyers.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, under 106, can I have
24 the three paragraphs preceding the one Murray outlined read
25 into the record, please?
00233 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any problem?
02 MR. ABOWITZ: No.
03 THE COURT: All right.
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you want to read it into the record,
05 sir?
06 A. Do I want to --
07 Q. Would you, please, read what your lawyer wants in the
08 record from this document.
09 A. You want me to read --
10 THE COURT: Which paragraphs, counselor?
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Starting with, "In 1993." Well,
12 no, starting with the paragraphs before that. "My simple
13 response."
14 THE COURT: Can you see that?
15 THE WITNESS: You want me to read beginning, "In
16 1993"?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: I think that's what your lawyer wants
18 you to read.
19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: The paragraph before that. "My
20 simple response."
21 THE COURT: The outlined paragraph. "My simple
22 response."
23 A. "My simple response to your question is that The
24 Foundation did not lie in 1983 when it renewed the copyright as
25 a work for hire.
00234 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Was that an accusation that was made?
02 A. Is that an accusation?
03 Q. No. Was that an accusation that this gentleman made when
04 he e-mailed you?
05 A. I don't recall.
06 Q. All right. Please proceed.
07 A. "In 1993, Thomas A. Kendall, a former trustee and
08 president of Urantia Foundation, who served on the board of
09 trustees for 20 years, delivered a talk on the copyright and
10 trademarks in which he said the following. 'Throughout the 20
11 years I served on the board of trustees of Urantia Foundation,
12 every lawyer we consulted was a specialist in the field of
13 copyright or mark law. We were completely forthcoming and
14 shared everything we knew about the origin of the book. The
15 trustees did not conspire to hoodwink the copyright office in
16 the renewal of the copyright in 1983. No reputable attorney
17 colluded with The Foundation to perpetrate a fraud."
18 Q. I don't mean to be smart, but, as a lawyer, the first
19 thing that comes to me is how about an unreputable attorney
20 colluding with you? It was not meant to leave that open, was
21 it?
22 A. I suppose.
23 THE COURT: Is that a question? I'm sorry. I didn't
24 understand it. Is that a question?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: No, I'll withdraw the question, Judge.
00235 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: It's not a question. You can't withdraw
02 not a question. The jury will disregard counsel's comments.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
04 THE COURT: You bet.
05 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. Root would be one of these reputable
06 lawyers; correct?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. So that what Mr. Root said in this affidavit would be
09 essentially something that was forthcoming?
10 A. I suppose so.
11 Q. And we can agree it was probably true?
12 A. From his point of view.
13 Q. All right. Well, you relied on your lawyers for this
14 copyright service, did you not?
15 A. True. Very true.
16 Q. And he was one you relied on for a long time?
17 A. Well, I wasn't a trustee then, but The Foundation did.
18 Q. I meant collectively.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, let me ask you a question. We talked a little bit
21 yesterday about the oath that was taken by -- you tell me who
22 took this oath of secrecy.
23 A. The Contact Commissioners.
24 Q. How about members of The Forum?
25 A. Also the members of The Forum.
00236 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. And the Contact Commissioners, I think as we said
02 yesterday, became The Foundation, essentially?
03 A. The Foundation was the successor of The Contact
04 Commission --
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you put that back up, please.
06 A. -- according to Dr. Sadler in a conversation I had with
07 him in 1962.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: Could you highlight the three
09 paragraphs we were talking about, please.
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This statement that is attributable to
11 Mr. Kendall as the president said, "We were completely
12 forthcoming and shared everything we knew."
13 Could he do that under that oath of secrecy?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Well, all of you, I have concluded, take that very
16 seriously; is that true?
17 A. I believe that the members -- that The Contact Commission
18 and the members of The Forum took their oath very seriously.
19 Q. And you know of no one who violated that oath, do you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right. Thank you.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have.
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, how did you become aware of these
24 trademarks to which Urantia Foundation has taken exception with
25 -- oh, strike that.
00237 { 5:29:07pm}
01 How did you become aware of the domain sites that had been
02 registered by Mr. McMullan and The Michael Foundation?
03 A. The executive director, I think, of Urantia Foundation had
04 informed me and the other trustees.
05 Q. Was that Ms. Baney?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Do you know how she came upon that information?
08 A. No.
09 Q. Did you ask?
10 A. No. She may have revealed at the time how she did.
11 Q. Did you -- What was your reaction to that?
12 A. I felt sad.
13 Q. Why?
14 A. Because since I have been a trustee, there's been the
15 board of -- The Urantia Foundation has been involved in two
16 litigations, one with Kristen Maaherra and -- well, I guess the
17 one with Kristen Maaherra, that it went on for years and I
18 wanted all litigation to cease, and it looked like this could
19 be the beginning of more litigation.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?
21 THE COURT: Sure.
22 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
23 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm at a point now where I
25 would like to discuss with Mr. Keeler the compromise thing that
00238 { 5:29:07pm}
01 we took up yesterday that you ruled basically that we would
02 have to come and talk to you before we discussed it.
03 THE COURT: What do you intend to establish by him in
04 regard to that?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: I intend to establish by him that there
06 was a basis upon which the differences could have been
07 compromised since he says that he was saddened and concerned,
08 that he foresaw another period of litigation for The Urantia
09 Foundation.
10 THE COURT: Well, why would that in any way make
11 compromise and offers of settlement, what he said about that,
12 why would that make that admissible in this case? We haven't
13 got any issue of maliciousness or anything of that nature in
14 this lawsuit. Your only argument for the exception to the rule
15 that compromise, settlements and offers are not admissible is
16 that it would somehow affect motive?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Bad faith.
18 MR. PLOURDE: It would negate bad faith.
19 THE COURT: We haven't got any issue of bad faith.
20 He said he was saddened by the fact that they were going to
21 have some litigation here. That doesn't bring -- nothing in
22 that makes that an offer of compromise of that or this or
23 anything else admissible in evidence. The rule is that you
24 don't get that stuff in. I don't know of any -- I don't know
25 of any basis for letting it in by what he said.
00239 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: May we address it again if the issue of
02 bad faith or malice does --
03 THE COURT: Well, in other words, we're not to that
04 point now so I sure don't believe in letting it in now, and
05 we'll take it up again if you want to when that issue does
06 arise.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
08 THE COURT: We've got the rule. I want you to
09 understand, we've got the rule that it does not come in
10 normally unless something triggers an exception to it, and I
11 haven't heard anything to that effect yet.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
14 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) When you received that information from
16 Ms. Baney, did you or any members of the board of trustees
17 speak with Mr. McMullan?
18 A. May I add something to your previous question?
19 Q. No.
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. You don't have a recollection of speaking to Mr. McMullan?
22 A. I did not.
23 Q. Is that something that you would undertake generally in a
24 circumstance like that where somebody did something that
25 saddened you because a course of litigation was on the horizon?
00240 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. Well, there are two trustees of Urantia Foundation who
02 were close associates. In fact, one of the trustees said,
03 "Mr. McMullan is my best friend."
04 Q. Who is that, sir?
05 A. Mo Seigel. And communication between Mr. McMullan and the
06 board of trustees has been through two trustees who are
07 friends, one a very close friend, and associates because they
08 were all leaders in the organization we spoke about yesterday
09 as originally the Urantia Brotherhood and then the organization
10 that became The Fellowship.
11 Q. And the other one would be Mr. Jameson, Gard Jameson?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So, is it accurate to state then that any communication
14 based upon the information you got from Ms. Baney would
15 probably have been through Mr. Siegel or Mr. Jameson?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Not you?
18 A. True.
19 Q. Do you recall a discussion with the board that, "Should we
20 do something and find out what Mr. McMullan is up to or find
21 out if we indeed have to embark upon litigation?"
22 A. I'm sure we --
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if I may, I'm afraid
24 this is getting into an area of the attorney/client.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't mean to --
00241 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: No, he just said was there any discussion
02 and his answer was, "Yes." That's all. Now, when we get into
03 that --
04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I don't know what board meeting
05 he's talking about and attorneys were present at certain board
06 meetings.
07 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. You may
08 proceed, counselor.
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir?
10 A. Would you repeat the question?
11 Q. I'm not sure I can.
12 A. There was discussion on the board, I think.
13 Q. All right. And we're not interested in discussions that
14 involved your lawyers.
15 A. We're not -- say again. We're not interested --
16 Q. When I ask a question, I am not soliciting a response that
17 includes any discussions or any confidential information that
18 you got from one of your lawyers. Do you understand that?
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. All right. What was the nature of the discussion?
21 A. We've had a policy since Mr. Myers ceased to be the
22 president of The Foundation and on the board of trustees to
23 speak with persons with whom we have any disagreements.
24 Q. I didn't quite -- the policy was that you could or could
25 not speak?
00242 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. No, no. That we would.
02 Q. And that was the discussion, that you would speak?
03 A. We would try everything that we could to peacefully settle
04 beginning with one-on-one, we call it the Jesus grievance
05 procedure, go to a person one-on-one, and if that doesn't work,
06 then in a small group of two or three other persons, and then
07 if that doesn't work out, then proceed on using some other
08 technique.
09 Q. You used the word "settle." Was that what -- That's what
10 its purpose was, to see if this dispute could be resolved by
11 settlement?
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may I approach?
13 THE COURT: It's not necessary. He can discuss
14 generally what happened at the board meeting. He's been
15 instructed not to talk about anything that he discussed with
16 the attorneys, but anything else with the board meeting, he can
17 testify to, counselor.
18 Now, anything that has to do with advice from counsel,
19 you're cautioned -- you don't have to do that because that
20 would be a violation of your attorney/client privilege, so you
21 don't have to testify. But with regard to the policy of the
22 board and the discussion with the other board members, you can
23 testify.
24 Now, with that cautionary discussion, we don't need a --
25 MR. ABOWITZ: That was the preface of my question,
00243 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Judge. I didn't want to get --
02 THE COURT: I understand that. I'm not criticizing
03 you, counselor, but I'm admonishing counsel so we won't have
04 numerous bench conferences about settlements, about anything
05 else, discussions of attorney/client or compromise and
06 settlement because none of that is admissible or permissible in
07 this proceeding.
08 Now, go ahead.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may I add one thing?
10 THE COURT: Pardon?
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I please add one thing?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm afraid that he's getting into
14 areas of conversation in anticipation of litigation.
15 THE COURT: Well, you can be concerned about it but
16 I'm going to let this gentleman ask these questions and then
17 you object if a question asked is objectionable or if an answer
18 given is objectionable, you may make your -- I'm not going
19 to -- well, I'm not going to say anything further.
20 Go ahead, counselor.
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I believe the question was that this
22 procedure that you outlined for us was essentially designed to
23 resolve the situation between The Urantia Foundation, Harry
24 McMullan, and Michael Foundation?
25 A. Yes.
00244 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. And that occurred?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And what resolution were you looking for?
04 A. A peaceful, nonlitigious resolution.
05 Q. And in --
06 A. Hopefully a win/win.
07 Q. You wanted your way and you wanted it without litigation;
08 is that correct?
09 A. Well, win/win, yeah, we wanted it our way but we wanted to
10 try to make it so that Harry would have his way and we would
11 have our way. But I suppose that's the reason we're here
12 today, because we've both been rather firm in our positions and
13 we want a judge to -- or a jury to decide, resolve our
14 differences.
15 Q. Let me get back to my question.
16 Other than win/win, what is the position that would have
17 satisfied you with respect to the three domain names in
18 question?
19 A. Well, I've had some legal -- that definitely involves
20 legal counsel.
21 Q. All right. Then I withdraw the question. I'm not
22 interested in delving into that.
23 What were the -- What are the three domain names in
24 question? Do you know them?
25 A. No.
00245 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Do you know if the domain names involve the name Urantia
02 Book?
03 A. Are you asking me if one of them is The Urantia Book?
04 Q. One or more of them, yes.
05 A. Well, they all contain the word, "Urantia." We have --
06 We own the registered marks and we've registered the marks
07 "Urantia" and "Urantian" and Mr. McMullan was using those words
08 in domain names which he took out.
09 Q. Urantia Foundation has permitted that use in the past, has
10 it not?
11 A. I don't -- know. I didn't say "no." I said, "I don't
12 know."
13 Q. All right. Let me show you, please, sir --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor?
15 It's exhibit 65, counsel. Documents 215, 1157, --
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: One more time, please.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: 215, 1157, 860, 1968.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if I may have a
19 moment?
20 THE COURT: Pardon?
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If I may have a moment to locate
22 the exhibits?
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: May the witness look at these
25 while he's --
00246 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Sure.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, we have an
03 authenticity and hearsay objection. We have objection based on
04 authenticity and hearsay.
05 THE COURT: Okay.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: One or all of them?
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: All of them.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: All right. May I, Your Honor?
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, let me show you document 215 and
10 216. Would you tell me what that is?
11 A. It is a -- or appears to be a letter from Urantia
12 Foundation to Ms. Brandt.
13 Q. And it is signed by?
14 A. Thomas A. Kendall.
15 Q. And it bears a numbered designation that would allow us to
16 conclude it came from Urantia Foundation files?
17 A. True.
18 Q. And this is a letter that Mr. Kendall, as president of The
19 Urantia Foundation, would have written in the normal course of
20 business of The Foundation; is that correct?
21 A. True.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: We would move for admission.
23 THE COURT: The hearsay objection will be overruled
24 and it will be admitted.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: May I put it up on the screen?
00247 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Sure.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have 215 and 216, please?
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This is a letter to which we were just
04 referring, Mr. Keeler?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. This letter is signed by Mr. Kendall as the president and
07 it's to one of these individuals that from time to time
08 inquires of Urantia Foundation about different matters?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Let me call your attention, please, to the third
11 paragraph. Would you read that, please.
12 A. "Individuals are free to use 'Urantia' when referring to
13 The Urantia Book or telling someone that Urantia is the name of
14 our planet. These usages are not violations."
15 Q. Is that the policy of The Urantia Foundation?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you have any objection to Mr. McMullan doing that?
18 A. Well, if he's doing it as an individual, as a private
19 individual and for noncommercial purposes, then we would have
20 no problem.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. Now, --
23 Q. This letter doesn't say "noncommercial purposes" though.
24 A. I agree.
25 Q. So you're adding that condition to Mr. McMullan?
00248 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. That's correct.
02 Q. Why was that not a condition for this?
03 A. I don't know.
04 Q. All right.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor?
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) If I asked the same question about The
07 Michael Foundation, would your answer be the same?
08 A. I think so.
09 Q. Would it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 Let me show you what's been marked or what bears the
13 designation of exhibits -- document numbers 1016, 1017. Can
14 you tell us what that is, sir?
15 A. It is a letter --
16 Q. Excuse me a minute.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, can we go up?
18 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
19 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
20 MR. ABOWITZ: These are the documents that were to be
21 redacted; correct?
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Here's the problem. Here's the
23 problem. I'm having a really tough time finding their
24 exhibits --
25 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
00249 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm having a real tough time
02 finding your exhibits because they're in huge groups and
03 there's no Bates number.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: I gave them a list this morning.
05 THE COURT: Let me tell you -- listen to me just a
06 minute. Before the session starts, any other session starts,
07 hopefully at noon or in the morning, you each exchange or that
08 you give him a list of any documents --
09 MR. ABOWITZ: I did that.
10 THE COURT: -- that you intend --
11 MR. ABOWITZ: I did that.
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm not saying he didn't do that.
13 But their composite exhibits don't reference the Bates stamps.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: I gave him a list of the exhibit and
15 the Bates stamp this morning, did I not?
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: You may have. I could be
17 incorrect.
18 THE COURT: At any rate, at noontime do that again.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: I've already done it.
20 THE COURT: For the whole day?
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes. Murray, I may have misstated
22 that.
23 THE COURT: All right. Let's go.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: He's reciting the name of the person.
25 Can I direct him not to --
00250 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Yes.
02 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
03 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you tell us what this is, please,
05 sir, without telling us to whom the letter is addressed?
06 A. It appears to be a letter from Urantia Foundation.
07 Q. On Urantia Foundation letterhead?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Bearing the date of?
10 A. September 5th, 1978.
11 Q. Written by?
12 A. Thomas A. Kendall.
13 Q. And this is a letter, is it not, that is written in the
14 normal course of the business of The Urantia Foundation by its
15 president?
16 A. It appears to be.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admission.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Be admitted.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have the exhibit, please.
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, who is James C. Mills?
22 A. A former trustee of Urantia Foundation.
23 Q. Was he a trustee in September of 1978?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Thank you.
00251 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: I'd ask you, please, to highlight this
02 paragraph.
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I would ask you to read that, please,
04 sir.
05 A. "You are correct, Urantia is indeed the name of our planet
06 and when used to" --
07 THE COURT: Read just a little bit slower, if you
08 will.
09 A. "You are correct, Urantia is indeed the name of our planet
10 and when used to designate our mortal abode, it should be
11 spelled upper case U, lower case rantia. Obviously, no
12 permission is needed for such a use. However" --
13 Q. May I interrupt you there? Is that the policy today of
14 Urantia Foundation?
15 A. I think so.
16 Q. All right. Please proceed.
17 A. "However, the word Urantia can also be used to
18 symbolically represent this latest revelation and the official
19 organizations and activities sponsoring its dissemination. It
20 is in this context that the trustees have registered Urantia
21 and the symbol as marks."
22 Q. Please proceed.
23 A. That next word?
24 Q. "Here."
25 A. Oh, "Here."
00252 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. Look at the original and make sure -- or the copy.
02 A. I think it's clearer up there.
03 "Here the word Urantia is spelled entirely in upper case
04 or the logo form is used. Since these are mark usages,
05 permission for such use must be in writing."
06 Q. Now, are these uses for commercial purposes?
07 A. I think so.
08 Q. Do you have any evidence that either Mr. McMullan or The
09 Michael Foundation have used these domain names for a
10 commercial purposes?
11 A. None that I know of.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, from time to time, sir, is it true
14 that people in the Urantia movement refer to themselves and
15 others in the movement as Urantians?
16 A. Some do.
17 Q. Do you?
18 A. No. Well, I probably did in the early days but I haven't
19 in years and years.
20 Q. Well, let me show you an early day.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, this is Bates number 860 which
22 I previously have given you.
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you tell us what that is, please,
24 sir.
25 A. It appears to be a letter from me to another person.
00253 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. And in this case I think it's proper for you to reveal the
02 name of the person.
03 A. Bill Hales.
04 Q. Who was?
05 A. At that time president of Urantia Foundation.
06 Q. And the date of the letter, please?
07 A. January 16th, 1972.
08 Q. And as best we can make out, is that your signature?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is that a letter you wrote?
11 A. I think so.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admittance.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
14 THE COURT: Be admitted.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: May we have it up on the screen,
16 please. Would you scroll this up, please, and would you
17 highlight the second paragraph.
18 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you read that statement for the
19 ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court.
20 A. Urantians are as zealous as Mormons."
21 Q. So you do use that?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. In the early days?
24 A. Well, at least once.
25 Q. All right. At that time, you were not on the board; is
00254 { 5:29:07pm}
01 that correct?
02 A. True.
03 Q. Did you ask permission to use that?
04 A. No.
05 Q. Would you think that you would have had to ask permission
06 to use that?
07 A. I don't know.
08 Q. You thought it was a fair use, didn't you?
09 A. Well, I wouldn't say that. I feel as though you're
10 putting words in my mouth.
11 Q. Well, that's what you wrote, isn't it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "Urantians are as zealous as Mormons." I didn't put that
14 in your mouth, did I?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Then the third paragraph says, "There are 1,000 hard-core
17 Urantians who have a certain amount of income from which they
18 could tithe; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you used it in that context again?
21 A. True. Noncommercially, privately.
22 Q. And in the proposal, you're talking about this 1,000 hard-
23 core Urantians tithing; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And by "commercial," you mean not in competition with The
00255 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Foundation; is that correct?
02 A. Well, not necessarily.
03 Q. Well, define for me, please, and explain for me the --
04 A. Well, with the Internet, for example, if someone goes onto
05 the Internet now and starts using the word "Urantia" and then
06 someone of you type in the word "Urantia," you will -- it will
07 bring up all of the web sites that have the word "Urantia."
08 And if an individual there is representing themselves as -- it
09 tends to imply that the individual or some of them would be
10 officially connected with The Urantia Foundation and there is
11 confusion that results from that.
12 Q. So you're --
13 A. It's not necessarily that they're doing something
14 commercial for money, but in the public's eye, it creates
15 confusion and we hope to avoid that.
16 Q. All right. Let's talk about two things now. Is a
17 commercial use -- A commercial use that involves the goods and
18 services of The Urantia Foundation and competes with The
19 Urantia Foundation is one that is not permitted; is that
20 correct?
21 A. I would agree with that.
22 Q. And a use that may cause confusion, which is different
23 than the first example, would not be permitted; is that
24 correct?
25 A. That, I believe, is an accurate statement.
00256 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. How many domain names are there on the Internet that bear
02 the word or words "Urantia" or some form of that word that
03 might tend to cause confusion?
04 A. I don't know.
05 Q. Hundreds?
06 A. Maybe.
07 Q. Thousands?
08 A. I doubt it.
09 Q. Hundreds?
10 A. Maybe.
11 Q. Would you agree with me that the only way to cause
12 confusion would be that if somebody got on the Internet and
13 scrolled around looking for the name "Urantia," that they would
14 come up with a name; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it your understanding that the domain names that The
17 Michael Foundation and Mr. McMullan registered can be accessed
18 on the Internet?
19 A. At this time, no.
20 Q. They -- and that hasn't been the case since they were
21 registered; is that correct?
22 A. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been the case
23 since they were registered.
24 Q. So, there is no basis for any confusion; is that correct?
25 A. Not at this time.
00257 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. And there is no basis for one to say that the registration
02 of those names competes or serves as a competitive force with
03 respect to Urantia Foundation and its goods and services?
04 A. I don't know. I would have to consult with legal counsel
05 before answering that question.
06 Q. I'm asking for your common understanding. I'm not asking
07 for a legal conclusion. Common sense. They're not registered,
08 you can't access them, so there isn't any competitive effect in
09 that sense to Urantia Foundation; correct?
10 A. I suppose so.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
12 THE COURT: Yeah. Is this a good place to take a
13 luncheon break?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Sure.
15 THE COURT: Let's be recessed until 1:15.
16 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'll remind you of my
17 previous admonition not to discuss the case. Be back in the
18 jury assembly room at 1:15 and we'll try to start very promptly
19 thereafter.
20 I'll ask everyone to stand and remain standing for the
21 jurors to clear the courtroom.
22 Court is in recess.
23 (THE LUNCHEON RECESS WAS TAKEN)
24
00258 { 5:29:07pm}
01 AFTERNOON SESSION
02 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001
03 ---------------------------------------------------------------
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF
05 THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: Steve, Anil tells me you have some
07 concerns about schedule and so forth. Let me first ask Murray.
08 How much longer to you anticipate with this witness?
09 MR. ABOWITZ: 10, 15 minutes.
10 THE COURT: And let's say cross-examination, what --
11 or examination, hour, hour-and-a-half? Who's your --
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Hour.
13 THE COURT: Huh?
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Cross, an hour.
15 THE COURT: How many other witnesses, live witnesses,
16 do you expect to call?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: One. Mr. McMullan.
18 THE COURT: How long would you anticipate he'll take
19 on direct?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Hour, hour-and-a-half.
21 THE COURT: All right. So we could very easily be
22 concluded with him today on direct; is that correct?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Correct.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: And maybe even have something left
00259 { 5:29:07pm}
01 over.
02 THE COURT: Okay. What about any other testimony,
03 evidence, witnesses, so forth, how much more will you take
04 tomorrow?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: I am still musing about that but if I
06 make up my mind to present more, they will be portions of
07 depositions that won't amount to an hour.
08 THE COURT: Okay. That will leave you Wednesday,
09 Thursday, --
10 MR. HILL: Today is Wednesday.
11 THE COURT: Pardon? I mean Thursday and Friday. Do
12 you get all the witnesses you need to get on Thursday and
13 Friday?
14 MR. HILL: I think so. I think at this point.
15 THE COURT: Okay. You wanted to work a little extra
16 this afternoon? Did you want to work late this afternoon?
17 MR. HILL: I don't think that's necessary.
18 THE COURT: All right. We'll see how it stands at
19 5 o'clock or around 5 o'clock. Would that be all right?
20 MR. HILL: If we get to cross on Mr. McMullan today,
21 I think we're doing okay.
22 THE COURT: Okay. We'll move along as quickly as we
23 can and see where we stand late this afternoon.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Is that our tentative schedule, to
25 conclude the evidence by Friday?
00260 { 5:29:07pm}
01 THE COURT: Well, no. I don't think -- he has some
02 witnesses he has to get in and out by Friday.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
04 THE COURT: I think he's going to attempt -- he'll
05 have some more scheduled for Monday, as I understand it.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: May I inquire?
07 THE COURT: We may all be out of here by Friday.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: That's fine by me, Judge.
09 THE COURT: Go ahead, counselor.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: I was going to inquire if we had some
11 sense now of how long the case will take.
12 THE COURT: Do you anticipate having witnesses on
13 Monday?
14 MR. HILL: Yes.
15 THE COURT: Or do you think you can conclude by
16 Friday?
17 MR. HILL: I don't think so, Judge. We have a number
18 of witnesses coming in over the weekend.
19 THE COURT: Now, then, can you hazard a guess as to
20 how long into next week your case will go?
21 MR. HILL: I can't imagine that it will go longer
22 than midday Tuesday.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: I've got a matter in Tulsa that I have
24 to get a permission slip for on Tuesday.
25 THE COURT: Tuesday?
00261 { 5:29:07pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: I'll take care of that.
02 THE COURT: I think this thing may go a little bit
03 faster as we go along. We may even improve on his schedule.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: I think the judge is looking forward to
05 me not showing up.
06 THE COURT: As I say, I start doing away with cross-
07 examination after the first week, so it tends to speed things
08 up.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Then we'll hold all of our
10 witnesses until next week.
11 THE COURT: We run into a few constitutional issues
12 but we get out of here quicker.
13 All right. Ready, Bev? Bring them on it. Everyone
14 please stand.
15 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
16 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
17 THE COURT: Be seated, please, ladies and gentlemen
18 of the jury.
19 Again, may I inquire, did anything occur during the recess
20 that would prevent any of you from continuing to serve as a
21 fair and impartial juror in this case? I gather not.
22 You may proceed, Mr. Abowitz.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. Keeler, does Urantia Foundation have
25 a policy that they have promulgated with respect to the use of
00262 { 5:29:07pm}
01 their marks?
02 A. Yes.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Can I approach the witness, Your Honor?
04 I have exhibit 40. May it be admitted?
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No objection.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: May we show exhibit 40 as being
07 admitted?
08 THE COURT: Pardon?
09 MR. ABOWITZ: May we show it as admitted? Counsel
10 has no --
11 THE COURT: Yeah, it's admitted.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you put that up on the screen,
13 40, 4-0.
14 Can you see that?
15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This is the policy regarding the use of
16 "Urantia" and "Urantian" and the three blue concentric circles.
17 This lawsuit doesn't concern itself with the concentric
18 circles, does it?
19 A. It does not.
20 Q. So we can ignore that portion of this document for that
21 purpose?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Let me provide or direct your attention to this center
25 sentence that starts, "Providing these safe harbors means The
00263 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Foundation has granted these uses as ones that you can freely
02 make without concern for violating any of the trademarks,
03 service marks or collective membership marks."
04 Do you know what a safe harbor or a fair use is?
05 A. In a general way.
06 Q. Would you explain that for us, please.
07 A. Well, if you were having a wedding or a funeral and you
08 wanted to use the word "Urantia" or "Urantian," then we
09 would -- or for private personal use around your home, well, we
10 would not object to your doing that. We regard that as not
11 confusing and a noncommercial use and you would be free and
12 welcome to do that. So that would be a safe use, a safe harbor
13 of those two words, "Urantia" and "Urantian."
14 Q. Hypothetically, are there people that have been married in
15 Urantian ceremonies?
16 A. I don't know that I would call them Urantian ceremonies
17 but they've been married and they've been readers of The
18 Urantia Book and many other members of The Urantia Book have
19 been present.
20 Q. Has the ceremony, in part, been based upon readings from
21 The Urantia Book?
22 A. Sure, some -- yes, I have attended weddings.
23 Q. Now, hypothetically, if one had prepared for the guests a
24 program of events and put "Urantian Wedding" on the front with
25 the three circles, would that be objectionable?
00264 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. I don't know.
02 Q. All right. Let me direct your attention to the first
03 sentence.
04 "You may use 'Urantian' or 'Urantians' merely to refer to
05 readers of The Urantia Book or as inhabitants of the planet
06 earth."
07 Are there other uses one can make of those terms?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And, for instance, if I said that I am interested in
10 talking to those who are steeped in Urantian study, would that
11 be objectionable?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Again, are we talking about confusion and commercial use?
14 That's the objection?
15 A. I think so, those two. There may be more but those are
16 the only two that come to my mind at this time.
17 Q. You can't think of any others at this time?
18 A. Not without consulting legal counsel.
19 Q. No. My question was: At this time, as you sit there
20 without any aid, that's what you can recall?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 When The Foundation uses the word "merely" here, what does
24 that mean? Does that mean to limit the use?
25 A. I'm not sure.
00265 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Q. The second sentence says, "You may use 'Urantia' merely as
02 a reference to planet earth."
03 Is the use of the word "merely" in this sentence meant to
04 limit the use of the word "Urantia"?
05 A. I don't know.
06 Q. It says, "You may 'Urantia' and 'Urantian' in weddings,
07 funerals, worship services including the program handout used
08 at the particular calendar event."
09 So, would your answer be different to my hypothetical
10 question now?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. But, hypothetically, I could do that if I wanted to do it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We'll not concern ourselves with 4, and we'll not concern
15 ourselves with 5, and we'll not concern ourselves with 6. It
16 says, "If you have any questions, please contact Urantia
17 Foundation."
18 What are the words that Michael Foundation and Harry
19 McMullan used in those domain sites?
20 A. I mentioned to you earlier, I don't know the exact names
21 that he registered but they do contain the words "Urantia" and
22 "Urantian."
23 Q. Do you know of your own accord whether or not the use that
24 Mr. McMullan and Michael Foundation intended of those words was
25 anything more than you allow them to do?
00266 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. Well, I don't know about his intention. I'm sure that
02 Coca Cola, for example, if I or you or any of you registered
03 the name Coca Cola and you put it up as a web site, it's going
04 to confuse people and they will object in the same way that The
05 Urantia Foundation is objecting.
06 Q. But you have no inclination that Mr. McMullan was not
07 using those terms or the term "Urantia" or "Urantian" within
08 the context that you permitted; is that correct?
09 A. Well, he might have been but I was told that he said if he
10 won this lawsuit, that he was going to set up a web site and
11 begin to use them for commercial purposes, and I think it would
12 be confusing, I assume, to distribute if he won this lawsuit
13 for both the marks and the --
14 Q. Well, we're not there. A federal judge once told me,
15 "Don't cross the bridge until you get there." Okay?
16 A. My dad told me that.
17 Q. All right. And I think the gentleman is sitting in the
18 courtroom that told me that.
19 THE COURT: I want the record to reflect it was not
20 this federal judge.
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let's talk about before Mr. McMullan
22 wins the lawsuit, if that's what happens.
23 You have no information that he's using these terms in any
24 sense other than those that are permitted by this policy; is
25 that correct?
00267 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. I suppose so.
02 Q. All right. And with respect to confusion, we've agreed
03 earlier that those domain sites are not in use, did we not?
04 A. That's true.
05 Q. So, in terms of your hypothetical example, if someone on
06 the jury were to get on the computer to look for them and
07 looked at these words, they wouldn't find them?
08 A. True. Judge West declared our marks to be valid.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the
10 soliloquy.
11 THE COURT: Just respond to his question.
12 A. Repeat the question.
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I believe you answered.
14 A. Please.
15 Q. There was a man named Schaveland, I think his name was,
16 who had a domain site, I think it was Urantia.com. Do you
17 recall that?
18 A. I recall his web site.
19 Q. Did The Foundation consider that to be offensive to this
20 policy?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. At the end of the day, was he permitted to keep the web
23 site?
24 A. He was not.
25 Q. He was not.
00268 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Let me move on to something else, and I'm just about to
02 conclude this.
03 I'd like to show you exhibit 59.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, counsel have agreed that
05 this may come into evidence.
06 THE COURT: Be admitted.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: May we have exhibit 59, please.
08 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I just wanted to clarify one point on
09 The Urantia Book.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you scroll that up, please.
11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I asked you a series of questions about
12 the book and I think I missed this one. The Urantia Book is
13 arranged and assembled exactly as revealed. Do you agree with
14 that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In other words, there is nobody, there is no human person
17 that rearranged that book after the writings were received; is
18 that correct?
19 A. True.
20 Q. It was published in exactly the form that it was arranged
21 at the time that Dr. Sadler or The Contact Commission took
22 possession of the writing?
23 A. False.
24 Q. And you are basing that upon the questions?
25 A. Yes, the questions before the papers were received and the
00269 { 5:29:07pm}
01 questions and revisions that were made after.
02 Q. Okay. But if there were any rearranging done, it was not
03 done by a human being; is that --
04 A. True.
05 Q. So the arrangement of the book as we see it published from
06 papers 1 through 196 is an arrangement totally based upon the
07 direction and arrangement of a celestial being?
08 A. I don't know about "a" but celestial beings.
09 Q. One or more celestial --
10 A. As a matter of faith, I believe that.
11 Q. One or more celestial beings; is that correct?
12 A. More than one. The book itself says, "A composite
13 presentation by many beings, many celestial beings."
14 Q. Then the correct way to describe this is that the
15 arrangement we find this book in today is based solely on the
16 arrangement as it was directed by these many celestial beings?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have about 10 seconds, Your
20 Honor?
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Was there a time, sir, when -- well, let
22 me back up a minute.
23 At one time, Urantia Brotherhood -- and correct my
24 terminology here if it's wrong -- distributed The Urantia Book.
25 A. It was distributed by an entity I believe called The
00270 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Brotherhood Corporation which was very closely affiliated with
02 Urantia Brotherhood and Urantia Foundation.
03 Q. And the Urantia Brotherhood?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. At some point in time, did the distribution of that book
06 change to put it in the hands of distributors?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. So, The Urantia Foundation would make as many copies as
09 were ordered available to these distributors to resell on
10 behalf of Urantia Foundation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Was there a time, sir, in fact, when the Urantia
13 Foundation restricted the sale of the book?
14 A. It depends on what you mean by "restricted," but in a
15 certain way, yes.
16 Q. In what way?
17 A. We had a policy -- The Foundation did, before I was
18 trustee, had a policy of selling books directly to individuals
19 and The Foundation also sold books to organizations that were
20 not official distributors at a discount. Sold books to
21 organizations that are -- well, I don't know about individuals,
22 but to organizations that were not official distributors, shall
23 we say discounters. He had an organization called Asoka
24 Foundation and books were sold to Mr. McMullan and then he
25 would resell them.
00271 { 5:29:07pm}
01 Now, the result of that was -- the question is: Why did
02 we change our policy? Why was there restriction?
03 Q. No, I thought you were explaining to me what the
04 restriction was.
05 A. I am.
06 The restriction was related to the fact that we wanted the
07 books to go through book stores. There were three conduits and
08 on each of those pipes there were wheels that you could turn.
09 So some of the books were going to individuals, some of them
10 were going through distributors, and then -- or to book stores
11 and to individuals, and some of them were going to discount
12 organizations such as Mr. McMullan's Asoka Foundation and then
13 they would go to individuals. We wanted to maximize the flow
14 to the book stores because book stores weren't carrying our
15 books. They said, "Well, if we can sell them, we will carry
16 it," so we turned off the spigot of the direct sales to
17 individuals and we turned off the spigot of sales to the
18 discounters that went to individuals, so it maximized the flow
19 to book stores. We wanted the book stores to carry the book so
20 we did restrict sales to individuals and to the discounters.
21 Q. Is it a fact that you essentially told Mr. McMullan that
22 you were going to restrict the number of copies of this book he
23 could buy?
24 A. I don't know. I think so. Yes.
25 Q. And he was buying books at 100 copies at a time?
00272 { 5:29:07pm}
01 A. Probably.
02 Q. And he was paying for them?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. He was paying your price for them?
05 A. Yes. He was a discounter. He had Asoka Foundation.
06 Q. I'm not talking about Asoka Foundation now. I'm talking
07 about Harry McMullan.
08 A. I don't know. That's possible.
09 Q. And Mr. McMullan would buy those books, 100 copies at a
10 time, and he would give some away?
11 A. Probably.
12 Q. He would sell some?
13 A. Probably.
14 Q. And he was doing exactly what The Foundation says it's
15 going to do in its charter; is that correct: spreading the word
16 and the book?
17 A. You could argue that.
18 Q. And you, for some reason, didn't want him to have that
19 many copies to do that; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. We wanted the book to go out through book stores,
21 not directly to individuals and not to discounters.
22 Q. How would you be harmed by Mr. McMullan paying full price
23 for those books and giving them to people who were interested
24 in reading and learning about the Urantia movement?
25 A. We wanted to go through the normal channels of
00273 { 5:29:07pm}
01 distribution. We wanted to go out through -- you buy books
02 through book stores, and we wanted to maximize the number of
03 books that book stores were willing to carry. And if I bought
04 books -- personally, I bought books from Mr. McMullan.
05 Q. Mr. McMullan personally?
06 A. Well, I don't know. It may have been Asoka Foundation.
07 But I bought books. And then when I understood how that meant
08 that those books were not going to be purchased through book
09 stores and go through that channel of distribution, then I
10 decided I wouldn't do that any more. I wanted to give the book
11 store owners incentive to carry the book on their shelves.
12 Q. But you refused to sell multiple copies to Mr. McMullan?
13 A. I don't know for a fact we did but --
14 Q. But --
15 A. But I -- it wouldn't surprise me to hear that we did.
16 Q. All right. Now, as a matter of fact --
17 A. We didn't single him out. There were a lot of people.
18 Q. There were a lot of people you wouldn't --
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. -- sell books to; right?
21 A. We were going to sell the book directly to no individual,
22 that was our policy, except for if somebody lived -- and I live
23 in Wyoming now -- if somebody was way out in Wyoming and there
24 was a book store that you had to go all the way to Cody or to
25 Sheridan and that was 150 miles away, well, we would mail one
00274 { 5:29:07pm}
01 directly to an individual like that who didn't have access to a
02 book store. Otherwise, we would say, "We would prefer you get
03 it from a book store. We're trying to encourage sales through
04 the book stores."
05 Q. And, in fact, you, on behalf of The Foundation, wrote
06 letters to people and said, "We don't choose to sell you or
07 your children books"; is that correct?
08 A. Yes.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have.
10 THE COURT: Counselor?
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I have a moment to give him a
12 list?
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I retrieve that exhibit
14 while we're waiting?
15 THE COURT: Sure.
16 CROSS-EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
18 Q. Hello, Mr. Keeler. How are you today? I'll try to make
19 this fairly brief.
20 Now, let's go back to yesterday. I know it's been a while
21 but I want to start at the beginning because that's always the
22 best place to start.
23 You mentioned in your examination by Mr. Abowitz that you
24 had taken an oath. Could you explain a little bit more about
25 that oath for the jury, please?
00275 { 5:29:10pm}
01 A. There was -- over the years, especially in the early days,
02 there was certain information shared with me that I agreed not
03 to share with other persons. I didn't raise my hand and take
04 an oath but it was as clear as could be that, and I was asked,
05 I was asked, "Would you not share this information with anyone
06 else?" and I said, "I shall not."
07 Q. And just to clarify, we've talked about a lot of oaths
08 here. This was not the oath that The Contact Commission took?
09 A. It was not.
10 Q. It was not the oath that The Forum took?
11 A. It was not.
12 Q. All right. Without divulging the information that you
13 took the oath regarding, can you tell me who it came from --
14 who told you the information, if you recall?
15 A. It came, I think, from Emma Christensen.
16 Q. Okay. And we've talked earlier about -- well, let's start
17 here. Did it have anything to do with the topics that
18 Mr. Abowitz discussed with you yesterday?
19 A. It did not.
20 Q. Or today?
21 A. It had nothing to do with the materialization of the
22 Urantia Papers. It had nothing to do with The Contact
23 Commission. It had nothing to do with the contact. It had
24 nothing to do with the publication of the book. I will say
25 this: It had to do with an automobile accident.
00276 { 5:29:15pm}
01 Q. All right. So, I mean, just to be clear, and I think
02 you've been clear, but it really has nothing to do with this
03 case; is that correct?
04 A. Nothing. Absolutely nothing, in my opinion.
05 Q. Let's move on then.
06 Now, you discussed a little bit yesterday with counsel
07 about how you became familiar with The Urantia Book. Do you
08 recall that?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Why don't you remind the jury, very generally, about your
11 early experience with The Urantia Book.
12 A. How I --
13 Q. Yes, sir.
14 A. I was a freshman at the University of Kansas and lived in
15 a fraternity, was a freshman the first year, and there was an
16 individual there, a fraternity brother of mine who was also a
17 freshman, and he told me about The Urantia Book. I heard about
18 it in 1959 and bought my first copy at -- it happened to be --
19 my last name is Keeler -- at Keeler's Book Store. No
20 relationship but I kind of feel good that I got my copy at a
21 book store by that name. And have now been reading The Urantia
22 Book since 1960. So that's over 40 years now.
23 Q. When you read the book, I take it you became mildly
24 interested in its contents?
25 A. Yes. It has been one of the few books in my life where
00277 { 5:29:19pm}
01 when somebody may say about a book, "You won't be able to put
02 this down," well, I was physically active and very athletic
03 when I was growing up and I was always able to put a book down
04 but I started reading The Urantia Book from beginning to end
05 and read it I think one time the longest period was seven
06 hours, but I was reading it in three and four and five-hour
07 goals.
08 Q. Now, I believe, to refresh your recollection, you
09 testified yesterday that at some point you became interested
10 enough to take a trip.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Where did you go? When did you take the trip and where
13 did you go?
14 A. I wrote to The Urantia Foundation in Chicago informing
15 them that I wanted to visit The Foundation and speak with
16 someone there about The Urantia Book. I told them that I was
17 very interested in it, and I received a letter back saying that
18 I was welcome to do that and suggesting a date. It was in the
19 spring of 1962.
20 Q. Do you recall who the letter was from?
21 A. No.
22 Q. So you did take the trip to Chicago?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you went to The Urantia Foundation headquarters?
25 A. Yes.
00278 { 5:29:24pm}
01 Q. And when you were at Urantia Foundation headquarters, did
02 you meet with anyone?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. Who was that?
05 A. Dr. Sadler.
06 Q. Dr. Sadler that we've heard so much about, the member of
07 the Contact Commission?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Okay. Now, if you recall, approximately how long was the
10 meeting?
11 A. Three to five hours.
12 Q. And was it a conversation or did you ask him questions?
13 A. Yes, questions, many questions.
14 Q. Did he respond to your questions?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In those three to five hours, did he tell you the facts
17 that you recited to the jury yesterday and today?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Would it be fair to say that your entire knowledge of what
20 occurred regarding the papers, regarding the questioning
21 process, regarding the Forum and the Contact Commission,
22 occurred from that conversation?
23 A. 99 percent, if not 100 percent. No, 99 percent.
24 Q. Well, let's start up again. You mentioned a lot of topics
25 and we have a lot of items that have been discussed in the last
00279 { 5:29:27pm}
01 two days. I want to talk about some of them and I want you to
02 tell me, based on what you learned from Dr. Sadler.
03 Tell me, generally, what he said about the subject. When
04 I say "subject," a lot of terms have been used and I want to
05 make sure everyone understands. We've used "patient" and we
06 have used "conduit" and we have used "subject." I don't know
07 which one you're most comfortable with but why don't you use
08 your term.
09 A. He told me in the early 1900s, my recollection is it was
10 1906 or 1907, and had it been 1907, I would have remembered it
11 because that's when we became a state in Oklahoma. In my
12 opinion, it was he told me 1906, but it was the early 1900s and
13 he said that an individual came to him. He said the patient --
14 or the term has been used "patient" and the implication was
15 that he was a psychiatrist and this individual came to him. He
16 was not a psychiatrist at that time. It was later that he
17 became a psychiatrist. He was still practicing general
18 medicine or surgery at that time. And the patient was
19 discoursing eloquently in his sleep and did that for a long
20 enough period that his wife was concerned and sought the
21 medical -- went to Dr. Sadler. She and her husband went to
22 Dr. Sadler and that is when this Urantia project started and it
23 went on for almost 50 years. I can give you more detail if you
24 want.
25 Q. Let's hold off.
00280 { 5:29:33pm}
01 Did he ever divulge the identity of this individual?
02 A. Never.
03 Q. Did he tell you whether the subject knew what was going
04 on?
05 A. He did.
06 Q. What did he tell you?
07 A. He said that the -- "sleeping subject" was the term that
08 he used -- that the sleeping subject would, after he -- when he
09 was not sleeping, he would read the papers and took a modicum
10 of interest in the papers, but in a subtle way he was also
11 remarkably unconcerned. He didn't see himself as some great
12 profit and an unusual --
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I will object to that
14 portion. It's now the mind of the patient rather than
15 Dr. Sadler.
16 THE COURT: We're permitting him to repeat what
17 Dr. Sadler said.
18 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Mr. Keeler, I think the Judge is
19 telling you that you can repeat what Dr. Sadler said because it
20 has been discussed ad nauseam.
21 A. I see.
22 Q. But don't give your own opinion. Is that fair?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Well, let's do it another way. Let's start at about what
25 year did -- I think you said the mid 1900s, early 1900s?
00281 { 5:29:37pm}
01 A. Early 1900s.
02 Q. Did there come a time later when Dr. Sadler invited others
03 to participate in what was occurring with this subject?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. And when about was that time?
06 A. About 1923 -- late '23 or early '24 and it got in full
07 swing in, I think, 1925.
08 Q. Okay. I'll try to add the numbers up myself, but
09 approximately between 15 and 20 years Dr. Sadler was the only
10 person who was -- and the wife, obviously, of the subject --
11 was the only person involved in hearing these transmissions
12 from the subject?
13 A. As far as I know.
14 Q. Well, what happened in the mid 1920s?
15 A. In 1923, late 1923, I think it was, Dr. Sadler's son, he
16 told me, Bill Sadler, Jr., that Dr. Sadler communicated to his
17 son, and he happened to be -- Dr. Sadler was lecturing in
18 Kansas on the Old Chautauqua Tour, he told me, and he
19 communicated with his son the idea of starting a Sunday
20 afternoon discussion group. It was partly social but they were
21 going to talk about medicine and books and philosophy, I think.
22 It wasn't exactly a book club. There were more social
23 overtones than that. But toward the end of '23, and he said,
24 "Well, mention this," according to Dr. Sadler, "Tell your mom
25 about this idea," and it materialized, I believe, in December
00282 { 5:29:43pm}
01 of 1923 and continued on through 1924 discussing other topics.
02 And it was in late '24, possibly '25, when Dr. Sadler --
03 he was asked, according to Dr. Sadler, this account that he
04 told me, he was asked if there were any unusual cases that he
05 had had and he mentioned this one that -- shall we call it now
06 the Urantia phenomena. He mentioned that. And after that
07 time, he told me that people didn't want to talk about anything
08 else but this.
09 And they started, in 1924, a group which they called The
10 Forum and we still refer to The Forum today. That over the
11 years, people would come and go, as I mentioned the other day,
12 but I think there were almost 500 persons total at any given
13 time, maybe there were only a couple hundred, and that was the
14 group.
15 A celestial being, according to Dr. Sadler, informed them
16 in one of these verbal sessions, through the sleeping subject,
17 that they were asking -- they said it much more elegantly than
18 this -- but, in effect, they said, "Why don't you stop asking
19 these foolish questions and trying to trick us and get us to
20 contradict ourselves. We've been sent on a very important
21 mission to deliver an important revelation to the people of
22 this planet," and this has been in preparation since, I think
23 he told me, since the middle ages, that this has been in the
24 planning stages. And they decided -- they took that as a
25 challenge and they said, "Okay, we will ask questions that
00283 { 5:29:51pm}
01 nobody, nobody knows about, no humans or nobody that we know
02 knows about." And that's when they wrote out on slips of paper
03 all of these questions and they placed them at some designated
04 place and that was when the first Urantia -- the questions
05 disappeared, the slips of paper and the questions disappeared,
06 he told me, and the first Urantia Papers appeared.
07 Q. Let's go back a little bit.
08 You've talked about one group called The Forum. Was that
09 group -- who was that group composed of, generally?
10 A. It was, he told me, composed of persons of all walks of
11 life. There were professional people, there were
12 nonprofessionals, laborers. He listed, as I recall -- he began
13 to list off people of so many different -- that worked at so
14 many different things, that it was like, well, it was made up
15 of everybody, a good cross-section of people.
16 Q. And The Forum was composed of persons who originally came
17 to Dr. Sadler's house, I believe?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And began to discuss other topics which turned into a
20 discussion of this one phenomena?
21 A. True.
22 Q. Was there another group associated with the phenomena?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Tell me about that group.
25 A. That group was called The Contact Commission.
00284 { 5:29:56pm}
01 Q. And I think you listed the names yesterday but I would
02 appreciate it if you would remind the jury of the names of
03 those individuals.
04 A. They were all blood or family related except for one. It
05 was Dr. Sadler and his wife and their son; and then it was Lena
06 Sadler, his wife's first name, Dr. Lena; and Dr. Lena had --
07 and her maiden name was Kellogg -- there were two of her
08 cousins who were also Contact Commissioners, Mr. and
09 Mrs. Kellogg; and then there was one person that was not blood
10 related to any of them, a lady by the name of Emma Christensen.
11 Q. So there were six Contact Commissioners and a certain
12 amount of members in The Forum and that number changed from
13 time to time depending on new people coming in and some people
14 leaving -- not leaving The Forum necessarily -- but leaving to
15 move out of town?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did it cost anything to join The Forum?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did the Contact Commissioners pay anything to join their
20 group, The Contact Commission?
21 A. They did not.
22 Q. Was The Forum charged anything to appear at these meetings
23 and to discuss the book and ask questions?
24 A. Would you repeat that?
25 Q. Well, I'll ask it simply. Were the members of the Forum
00285 { 5:30:01pm}
01 paid any compensation for what they did in this phenomenon?
02 A. They were not.
03 Q. Were the members of The Contact Commission paid any
04 compensation?
05 A. They were not. I believe Dr. Sadler made it clear to me
06 that no one received a penny from beginning to end during this
07 whole process. It was all volunteer.
08 Q. Well, we're missing somebody. What about the subject?
09 A. He was paid -- or nobody -- he told me nobody received any
10 money, so "nobody" includes the subject.
11 Q. Now, we're at 1925 and we've got The Forum and we've got
12 The Contact Commission and we've got the sleeping subject, the
13 three parties involved. Why don't you tell me, because I don't
14 think it has really been told as a story, why don't you tell
15 the jury about, from the beginning to end, the questioning
16 process and how the papers came about.
17 A. Each member of The Forum -- now, The Contact Commission
18 was also a part -- these six individuals were also a part of
19 the Forum -- they would write questions on slips of paper, and
20 then the Contact Commissioners would go through and take out
21 any duplicates. And the papers -- Dr. Sadler emphasized that
22 the papers all came as a response to these questions, and he
23 referred to them as genetic questions, genes, genetic, having
24 to do with originating. To me, the word "genetic" indicates
25 there's something more active --
00286 { 5:30:06pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to his
02 analysis.
03 THE WITNESS: You're right. I'm sorry.
04 THE COURT: Sustained.
05 THE WITNESS: I sustain that as well. Excuse me,
06 Judge.
07 THE COURT: Thank you.
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you two like to change
09 seats?
10 THE WITNESS: Not today. Thank you.
11 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) All right. I think we're jumping
12 ahead of ourselves.
13 Where were these meetings? Where did they take place?
14 A. In Chicago.
15 Q. Where?
16 A. At 533 Diversey Parkway, which is the current headquarters
17 of The Urantia Foundation. When Dr. Sadler died, he gave the
18 building to Urantia Foundation.
19 Q. When were the meetings?
20 A. Sunday afternoons.
21 Q. And when you say the meetings were at 533 Diversey and
22 they occurred Sunday afternoon, is that consistent for the
23 entire process or did they hold them at different people's
24 houses? Did they hold them on different days?
25 A. No. They were all held, according to Dr. Sadler, they
00287 { 5:30:10pm}
01 were all held at 533 Diversey Parkway.
02 Q. Okay. So, if I've got this right, The Forum submitted
03 questions to The Contact Commission?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. And what did The Contact Commission do with the questions?
06 A. They put them in a certain place. When I said everything
07 I know about the origin, it came from Dr. Sadler, 99 percent if
08 not 100 percent, he did not tell me -- I've since heard a rumor
09 that those slips of paper were put in his desk.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I would object to any rumor
11 and move it be stricken.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Well, so, we've got -- they were
14 put somewhere?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And -- Well, were there meetings with the subject at
17 all? How was the subject involved?
18 A. Did The Forum meet with the subject?
19 Q. No. We know The Forum and The Contact Commission met on
20 Sunday afternoons.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What about the subject himself?
23 A. The subject and The Contact Commission met.
24 Q. And do you know when they met?
25 A. No.
00288 { 5:30:13pm}
01 Q. Do you know where they met?
02 A. No.
03 Q. Dr. Sadler didn't tell you that information?
04 A. He did not.
05 Q. And did Dr. Sadler tell you anything about those meetings
06 between The Contact Commission and the subject?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. Why don't you share that with the jury.
09 A. Well, there was the verbal contact that went on for 50
10 years, in addition to when the Contact Commissioners were
11 communicating with the subject, he would talk. And he said
12 that -- and then there were the written communications. They
13 never saw him write them.
14 Q. Well, let's slow down now. You said he would talk?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what years are we talking about here?
17 A. Early 1900s, until 1955.
18 Q. So, during the meetings, sessions, I think, The Contact
19 Commission and the subject, the subject would talk. And what
20 would he say?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Well, what occurred after those meetings?
23 A. There were -- what did he say? May I answer --
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object. It's
25 been asked and answered, what he said, and he said he didn't
00289 { 5:30:18pm}
01 know.
02 THE COURT: Sustained.
03 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Why don't you tell the jury what
04 happened because of the meetings with The Contact Commission
05 and the subject.
06 A. What was said, he was discoursing on --
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
08 that. He already said he didn't know what he said.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if he knows, he knows.
10 THE COURT: Pardon?
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I mean, I agree that he initially
12 said, "I don't know," but he seems prepared to answer.
13 THE COURT: Have you now reconsidered that answer and
14 consider it incorrect?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: That you did not know?
17 Go ahead, counselor.
18 A. Two things Dr. Sadler told me were unusual about this
19 individual. He spoke in --
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, that is not responsive to
21 the question.
22 THE COURT: I think it is. Go ahead.
23 A. He spoke in innumerable voices. Sadler said, "I have
24 never seen this before." Innumerable voices. And he was
25 consistent from one session to the next. They tried to make
00290 { 5:30:22pm}
01 him contradict himself, they tried to trick him, and he said
02 sometimes people who go into a trance-like state, that they
03 will be consistent within one trance but if they go into
04 another one, then they will be -- you can get them to
05 contradict themselves; they will say something in the next
06 trance that was different. But he said this guy, over 50
07 years, never, in their minds, never contradicted himself, and
08 represented all of these -- well, innumerable voices, I think
09 was the adjective -- innumerable voices that came through, that
10 he had never seen that before. He had seen a few different
11 voices but never innumerable. And they discoursed on things of
12 -- not matters that were not just about things here and now on
13 this planet, but they spoke, he told me, of matters relating to
14 the organization of the universe and cosmology and how the
15 entire universe works.
16 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) And -- I'm sorry. Please continue
17 if you have more to say.
18 A. Well, I think he uses an example, and this is in The
19 Urantia Book, that the universe expands and contracts like a
20 heart. We're in an expansion cycle now. But such topics that
21 most of us don't talk about over spaghetti and garlic bread.
22 Q. Now, did someone take efforts to take down or retain what
23 the subject was saying?
24 A. Yes. He said that his wife did in the early days, but
25 then in about 19- -- in the early 1920s, I think it was '22,
00291 { 5:30:28pm}
01 Emma Christensen, who was a stenographer, among other things,
02 became the official stenographer. It was about the time that
03 The Forum got started. So there had been an earlier written
04 record but it was not professionally done, shall we say, by the
05 professional Emma Christensen.
06 Q. Now, at some point, did the responses of the subject
07 become -- or materialize, for lack of a better word?
08 A. Did the communications of the subject materialize?
09 Q. Yes.
10 A. Well, they went from being the verbal communications to
11 being the written communications.
12 Q. And how did those written communications, based on what
13 Dr. Sadler told you, how did they materialize? How did they
14 occur?
15 A. He did not know. He said, "This is one phenomena I do not
16 understand." All of these other psychic phenomenas, he said,
17 and I mentioned -- gave him some examples and asked him
18 questions from my own experience, and he said, "I can explain
19 all of those, those are well-known psychic phenomena, but this
20 Urantia phenomena, I cannot explain."
21 Q. Now, at some point we've heard testimony from you, from
22 counsel's examination, that papers started to appear.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And --
25 A. I think he used the term "materialized."
00292 { 5:30:34pm}
01 Q. I used the correct term.
02 When did papers occur and what was the process?
03 A. They would ask -- The Forum would ask questions. Again,
04 The Contact Commission was a part of The Forum. They would ask
05 questions and they would put them in a certain place and then
06 the questions, which were on slips of paper, would disappear
07 and the papers would appear in their place. After that, the
08 paper then would be read to The Forum at one of these Sunday
09 afternoon meetings and they would ask questions and they were
10 told that the celestial beings were observing them and
11 listening to the questions and reactions to the material that
12 had been read, and based on their reactions, then the papers
13 would be -- the papers were revised.
14 Q. And are we talking about --
15 A. So, there were really two sets of questions or input on
16 the part of The Forum. There were the questions up front
17 before the papers appeared and then the papers appeared, and
18 then there would be, shall we say, the post-appearance of the
19 papers, questions and revisions.
20 Q. Now, we talked about The Forum. What was The Contact
21 Commission's role in all of this?
22 A. They were the organizers. They were the facilitators.
23 They were the directors and managers of all of this.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I approach the witness, Your
25 Honor?
00293 { 5:30:37pm}
01 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you look through that
02 document, please.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: May I ask the number, please?
04 May we approach the bench, Your Honor?
05 THE COURT: Sure.
06 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
07 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
08 THE COURT: Anybody have a copy of the document?
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Mr. Keeler, may I borrow that?
10 MR. ABOWITZ: We have it. We have it.
11 THE COURT: I can't hardly read this. What is it?
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Let's take a look at the first
13 page, this first page. Your Honor, this is their exhibit.
14 This is ours. If you recall, this matter was before --
15 MR. ABOWITZ: Shhh.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: This matter was raised in chambers
17 about objections. They did not object to their own exhibit,
18 obviously, and we withdrew our objections to the exhibit and
19 now we're attempting to put it into evidence and I think
20 they're objecting to it.
21 THE COURT: What is the objection, if any, and have
22 you listed your objection?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, we have.
24 THE COURT: Okay. What are they?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: It does not fall under the ancient
00294 { 5:30:43pm}
01 document exceptions because it's not reliable. The testimony
02 that would --
03 THE COURT: You're objecting on the ground that it's
04 hearsay and not --
05 MR. ABOWITZ: It's hearsay and it's not reliable,
06 they can't prove it came out of their files and there are three
07 different versions of it.
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, if I may?
09 THE COURT: Sure.
10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: First of all, their objections are
11 waived. They did not keep them in the pretrial order. We've
12 waived -- We've removed our objections prior to trial. There
13 are no objections to this. I mean, we're going to pull a case
14 right now that says, frankly, that we all know that if you
15 don't have objections evidence, they're gone.
16 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, what they're trying to offer now
17 is a document that we listed and they just tried to boot strap
18 it in through all of your exhibits.
19 THE COURT: You listed it and they didn't list it?
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: (COUNSEL SHAKES HEAD)
21 THE COURT: And both sides waived objections?
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
23 THE COURT: And you didn't make any specific
24 objection to it but you simply listed it, right, and now you
25 are objecting to it?
00295 { 5:30:46pm}
01 MR. PLOURDE: Well --
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes.
03 THE COURT: Did they incorporate your listings in
04 their pretrial order?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: They did.
06 THE COURT: It will be admitted then. Objections are
07 waived.
08 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
09 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
10 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Have you looked -- you don't have
11 it any more, do you?
12 Would you please review that? Take your time.
13 THE COURT: All the time you need, up to 30 seconds.
14 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Mr. Keeler, --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- do you recognize the document?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. Would you please tell the jury what the document is.
19 A. It is, in my opinion, a history of the Urantia Papers
20 written by Dr. Sadler.
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Can you pull it up, please?
22 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) I think what we're going to do for
23 the jury, and I know it's very difficult to see, we've
24 obviously got it on there and I would ask you at times to read
25 it, if that's okay with the Judge, because it is a bad copy.
00296 { 5:30:52pm}
01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If you would, scroll down. Would
02 you highlight that right there? Go up a line and down a line.
03 That will be fine.
04 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you start right there,
05 Mr. Keeler, and read for the jury what it says.
06 A. "This group early arrived at the conclusion that the
07 phenomena connected with the personality, who was later
08 associated with the Urantia Papers, was in no way similar to
09 any other well-known type of psychic performance, such as
10 hypnotism, automatic writing, clairvoyance, trances, spirit
11 mediumship, telepathy, or double personality."
12 Q. Go ahead and read the last paragraph as well.
13 A. "It should be made clear that the antecedents of the
14 Urantia Papers were in no way associated with so-called
15 spiritualism, with its seances and supposed communication with
16 the spirits of departed human beings."
17 Q. Let's take that language --
18 THE COURT: Mr. Schoenthaler, --
19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes?
20 THE COURT: -- usually people don't get quite close
21 enough but I believe you're a bit too close to that
22 microphone. I'm having a little difficulty hearing you.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes, Your Honor.
24 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Let's take that paragraph you just
25 read.
00297 { 5:30:57pm}
01 Did that language strike a bell with you?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And why is that?
04 A. It appears to be, and I am familiar with this document, it
05 appears to me to be on paper what Dr. Sadler said to me in
06 person.
07 Q. And when did he say this to you in person?
08 A. In 1962.
09 Q. When you visited Chicago?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And we're going to go through the entire document, not all
12 of it, I promise, but a lot of the document. I want to know
13 ahead of time, since you're familiar with the document, is that
14 true for the entire document?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you please turn it to 4?
17 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Mr. Keeler, when you get to page 4,
18 I would appreciate if you would read the entire page.
19 A. "We told The Forum all about this and invited them to join
20 us in the preparation of questions. We decided to start out
21 with questions pertaining to the origin of the cosmos, deity,
22 creation, and such other" -- I can't read my copy here. Let's
23 see what it says up here.
24 Where was I?
25 Q. Mr. Keeler, you can turn around and look behind you and
00298 { 5:31:02pm}
01 you might be able to see it better. The other side.
02 A. Oh.
03 -- "questions pertaining to the origin of the cosmos,
04 deity, creation and such other subjects as were far beyond the
05 present-day knowledge of all mankind.
06 "The following Sunday, several hundred questions were
07 brought in. We sorted out these questions, discarding
08 duplicates, and in a general way, classifying them. Shortly
09 thereafter, the first Urantia paper appeared in answer to these
10 questions. From first to last, when the papers appeared, the
11 questions disappeared.
12 "This was the procedure followed throughout the many years
13 of the reception of the Urantia Papers. No questions, no
14 papers."
15 Q. And that last short sentence, do you recall that as being
16 something Dr. Sadler told you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If you would, Mr. Keeler, would you read page 5 to the
19 jury.
20 A. "After about 20 years of contact experience, an" --
21 Q. Mr. Keeler, why don't you read the title first.
22 A. Oh. "How the Urantia Papers Started."
23 "After about 20 years of contact experience, an alleged
24 student-visitor, speaking through" -- I don't know -- "this" --
25 or "the sleeping subject." It's some other word than "this."
00299 { 5:31:08pm}
01 I can't make that out. -- "speaking through this" -- it looks
02 like "this" up here -- "this sleeping subject during one of
03 these nocturnal vigils, in answer to one of our questions said,
04 'If you only knew what you are in contact with, you would not
05 ask such trivial questions. You would rather ask such
06 questions as might elicit answers of supreme value to the human
07 race.'"
08 Q. Keep going. Read the entire --
09 A. "This was something of a shock, as well as a mild rebuke,
10 and caused all of us to look upon this unique experience in a
11 new and different way. Later on that night, one of our number
12 said: 'Now they have asked for it. Let us give them questions
13 that no human being can answer.' Now it is best to let matters
14 rest here while we shift this narrative to a new and different
15 setting."
16 Q. Now, the next --
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If you'll turn to 6, please.
18 Highlight the title.
19 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) I don't want you to read this but I
20 want you to look it over. If there's no objection, I want you
21 to state on the record whether it is similar to what you
22 communicated to the jury in your testimony today.
23 A. It is.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Please turn it to 8.
25 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Now, at some point we've discussed
00300 { 5:31:15pm}
01 that The Forum was a group of friends and acquaintances from
02 many walks of life and they -- that group turned into The
03 Forum. Now, if you'll look at page 8, and the title, would you
04 please read the first three paragraphs and then explain whether
05 it was similar to what Dr. Sadler told you about The Forum's
06 organization.
07 A. The title is, "The Forum" -- something -- "A Closed
08 Group." Can anyone make out that word? "The Forum" -- what is
09 that word?
10 Q. If you can't read --
11 A. I can't. I can't --
12 Q. Just go ahead and skip down.
13 A. -- there, here, or behind me. "The Forum" -- something --
14 A Closed Group."
15 "About this time, The Forum, as it were, was taken away
16 from us. We were instructed to form a closed group, requiring
17 each member to sign a pledge of secrecy and to discuss the
18 papers and all matters pertaining thereto with only these
19 persons who were members of The Forum.
20 "Membership tickets were issued and the charter membership
21 membered 30. The date of this organization was September,
22 1925. 17 of these charter members are still living."
23 Q. Now, I want to stop you for a second and I want to ask
24 you: Based on what you've read so far, and your familiarity
25 with the document, do you have an opinion as to who the author
00301 { 5:31:21pm}
01 of this document is?
02 A. Yes.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, we'll object to that
04 opinion. There's no foundation.
05 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Do you have an understanding as to
06 who the author of the paper is?
07 A. Yes.
08 MR. ABOWITZ: Same objection.
09 THE COURT: Lay a predicate as to what he bases his
10 understanding on.
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Sure.
12 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) You mentioned that you visited with
13 Dr. Sadler in 1962 in Chicago; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you've reviewed this document and you've recited for
16 the jury portions of the conversation with Dr. Sadler. Is
17 there anything regarding the relationship between that
18 conversation and this document which makes you have what you
19 consider an understanding of who the author is?
20 A. There's so much in this written history both in what is
21 said and the way it is said that is similar or -- similar --
22 almost identical or identical to my recollection that I have --
23 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. He may
24 express his --
25 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Go ahead and just --
00302 { 5:31:26pm}
01 A. I have no doubt that Dr. Sadler wrote this history. What
02 he told me verbally and what he told me here is the same.
03 Q. Let's go to paragraph 3 on that page, page 8, if you
04 would. Please pick up the reading again. Judging -- I don't
05 know what this document is dated. I don't think it is. Where
06 Dr. Sadler says that at the date the organization, that 17 of
07 the charter members of the organization are still living,
08 judging by what you know and this doesn't have to be from
09 Dr. Sadler's conversation with you, when about would this have
10 been? If you do the math, it's pretty obvious that that's a
11 lot of people to be very old out of 30.
12 A. I think this was probably done in the late '50s, sometime
13 after the publication of the book. Between '55 and '60.
14 Q. Why don't you start with paragraph 3 then.
15 A. "The individuals charged with the responsibility of
16 gathering up the questions and comparing the typewritten text
17 with the original handwritten manuscript came to be known as
18 the Contact Commissioners. From that date forward, only these
19 Contact Commissioners attended contacts and received written
20 communications through the contact personality."
21 Q. Why don't you start -- go ahead and take the last
22 paragraph, please.
23 A. "From time to time, new members were received into The
24 Forum, after being interviewed by the officers and after
25 signing the same pledge that was signed by the original charter
00303 { 5:31:32pm}
01 members. This pledge read, 'We acknowledge our pledge of
02 secrecy, renewing our promise not to discuss the Urantia
03 revelations or their subject matter with any" -- and I can't
04 read that word -- "with anyone save the active Forum members,
05 and to take no notes of such matter as is read or discussed at
06 the public" -- "at the public" -- I don't know that word -- "or
07 make copies or notes of what we personally read."
08 Q. Okay. Let's talk --
09 A. "Public meetings."
10 Q. Let's talk about that a moment. Did Sadler -- Based on
11 your conversation with Dr. Sadler, did he ever tell you
12 anything regarding the oath of secrecy and the steps that The
13 Forum and Contact Commission took to enforce this oath of
14 secrecy?
15 A. Steps they took to enforce it?
16 Q. Well, I think, if you'll look at the bottom paragraph, was
17 there some prohibition on removing --
18 A. Yes. Excuse me. Finish your sentence.
19 Q. -- removing notes that were taken at meetings?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Would you like to expand on that?
22 A. I don't think I have anything to add to this. They
23 couldn't talk -- I remember he told me they could not
24 communicate anything to their spouses, to their children, to
25 their loved ones until after the book was published.
00304 { 5:31:40pm}
01 Q. Was there a similar prohibition regarding the papers?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. Were they allowed to take papers off of the premises of
04 533 Diversey?
05 A. Never. Never.
06 Q. When someone wished to read a paper individually, was
07 there a process they had to go through?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Would you please tell the jury about that process.
10 A. They had to go to Dr. Sadler's residence, now the
11 headquarters of Urantia Foundation, and check a paper out, and
12 read it in a certain room that to this day is called The Forum
13 Room. Then when they left that room, they had to turn in the
14 paper.
15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you please turn to page 9?
16 A. So, to my knowledge, it was certainly not allowed out of
17 the headquarters. It wasn't even allowed out of The Forum
18 Room.
19 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) We talked at some length and we've
20 shown in the history of the Urantia movement paper that there
21 was a questioning process. Do you have an understanding from
22 your conversation with Dr. Sadler about when the questioning
23 process concluded, at which point in time there were no more
24 questions?
25 A. Yes.
00305 { 5:31:44pm}
01 Q. Would you please tell the jury when that was.
02 A. 1942, May 31.
03 Q. Would you please read that page to the jury.
04 A. "The last meeting of The Forum as a genetic assembly was
05 held on May 31, 1942. During the 17 years of official
06 existence, The Forum attained a total membership of" -- it
07 looks like "486." I'm not sure
08 Q. Would you read the second paragraph. You can skip the
09 handwriting. I don't think anybody can read that.
10 A. "During the period of the reception of the Urantia Papers,
11 upwards of 360 different persons participated in asking these
12 genetic questions. With but few exceptions, all of the Urantia
13 Papers were given in response to such questions."
14 Q. When it says, "With all but few exceptions," did
15 Dr. Sadler say what those exceptions were?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what those exceptions were?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you have an understanding, your own personal
20 understanding, of what the term "genetic", as used on that
21 page, means?
22 A. I was earlier mentioning this. Genetic to me has to do
23 with genes and has something to do with originating,
24 initiating. So that these weren't -- I don't know what other
25 questions. They weren't flat questions, they weren't innocuous
00306 { 5:31:52pm}
01 questions. They were --
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'll object. This is
03 speculation.
04 THE COURT: Sustained.
05 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you please turn to page 20.
06 If you can, would you please read that first paragraph,
07 please, and the title.
08 A. "Reason For Silence" -- and I don't know the next word --
09 "Details of The Origin of The Urantia Book." That may be -- I
10 don't know. Speculation, am I permitted?
11 Q. No, don't worry about that. Just read the first
12 paragraph.
13 A. "Among the several reasons given us at the time we were"
14 -- I don't know -- "we were" something -- "we were
15 requested" -- "we were requested not to discuss the details of
16 our personal experience associated with the origin of The
17 Urantia Book, the" -- something -- "major reasons were the
18 following."
19 Q. Would you please read number 1.
20 A. "1. Unknown Features. There is" -- I don't know that
21 word -- "there is something connected with the appearance of
22 The Urantia Papers which no human being fully understands.
23 None of us really knows just how this phenomenon was executed.
24 There are numerous missing links in our understanding of how
25 this revelation came to appear in written English.
00307 { 5:31:58pm}
01 "If anyone of us should tell any one all we really know
02 about the technique and methods employed throughout the years
03 of our getting this revelation, such a narration would satisfy
04 no one - there are too many missing links."
05 Q. Would one of those missing links be how the papers
06 appeared in handwriting of the subject?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. Would you please read number 2.
09 A. "The main reason for not revealing the identity of the
10 contact personality is that the celestial revelators do not
11 want any human being - any human name - ever to be associated
12 with The Urantia Book. They want this revelation to stand on
13 its own declarations and teachings."
14 Q. And would you read the last part of that.
15 A. "They are determined that future generations shall have
16 the book wholly free from all mortal" -- "all mortal" -- I
17 don't know. It looks like "evolutionary" -- "all mortal" --
18 Q. That's all right. The jury can read it as well. Why
19 don't we move on.
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Do we have 21? Do we have 21?
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 22?
22 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me. I thought that was 21.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: You're right. I'm sorry.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: We're going to a different one?
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes.
00308 { 5:32:02pm}
01 A. Oh, it was, "From all mortal connections."
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Turn to the next page, please
03 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you please read that entire
04 page.
05 A. "The First Urantia" -- I don't know. "The First Urantia
06 Papers," I think.
07 "The first group of papers numbered 57. We then received
08 a communication suggesting that since we could not ask many and
09 much more intelligent questions, the experiment" -- oh, boy, I
10 don't know. "The super" -- "the" something -- "the super" --
11 something -- "agencies and personalities responsible for
12 transmitting the 57 papers would engage to enlarge the
13 revelation and to expand the papers in accordance with our new
14 questions.
15 "This was the plan: We would read a paper on Sunday
16 afternoon and the following Sunday the new questions would be
17 presented. Again, there would be" -- "these would be sorted
18 classified, etc. This process covered several years and
19 ultimately resulted in the presentation of the 196 papers as
20 now found in The Urantia Book."
21 Q. So, based on your conversation with Dr. Sadler and this
22 document, do you have an understanding as to whether the papers
23 came all at once?
24 A. They did not.
25 Q. How did they arrive?
00309 { 5:32:10pm}
01 A. As this said, and I remember distinctly his telling me the
02 story about these first 57 papers. They'd been having the
03 questions and answers, and the celestial beings said, "Well, if
04 you knew then -- if you knew now what you knew then, would you
05 be able to ask better questions?" and they said, "Yes," and
06 they said, "Okay, we're starting all over again."
07 Q. Let's turn to the next page, please. We're going to take
08 it from the top, Mr. Keeler, starting with the title, please.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I inquire as to what
10 page of the exhibit this is?
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Mr. Keeler, can you read the page
13 on the exhibit, please?
14 A. I'm trying.
15 Q. No; the very bottom of the page, the written page, right
16 in front of you, does that have a page number?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What page number is it?
19 A. 23.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I look at your exhibit?
21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: You can't look at mine. Mine's --
22 well, come here. You can look at mine.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't want to see your secrets. Just
24 let me look at the numbers.
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Look at his.
00310 { 5:32:14pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you. I'm
02 sorry, Your Honor.
03 A. I don't know what it says at the top.
04 Q. Okay. Go ahead and just read from the first paragraph,
05 please.
06 A. "In a way, there was a third presentation. After
07 receiving these 196 papers, we were told that the revelatory
08 commission would be pleased to have us" -- something -- "have
09 us go over the papers" -- "go over the papers once more and ask
10 questions concerning the clarification of concepts and the
11 removal of ambiguities. This program again covered several
12 years. During this period, very little new information was
13 imparted. Only minor changes were made in any of the papers.
14 Some matter was added - some removed - but there was little
15 revision or amplification of the text."
16 Q. Okay. And now would you please read for the jury that
17 last paragraph.
18 A. "What has been recorded refers more particularly to parts
19 I, II, and III of The Urantia Book. Part IV, The Jesus Papers,
20 had a little different origin. They were produced by a
21 midwayer commission and were completed one year later than the
22 other papers. The first three parts were completed and
23 certified to us in A.D. 1934. The Jesus Papers were not" --
24 something -- "delivered to us until 1935."
25 Q. Now, I believe counsel for Harry McMullan and Michael
00311 { 5:32:22pm}
01 Foundation discussed with you that the papers were delivered by
02 1935. Do you recall that testimony?
03 A. That -- yes, 1935. They were all there before 1936.
04 Q. Do you recall, from your conversation with Dr. Sadler and
05 your familiarity with this paper, whether the papers, all 196
06 of the papers, were completed in 1935?
07 A. No, they were not.
08 Q. When were they completed?
09 A. In 1942.
10 Q. Would that be when the last genetic question was asked?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And look at that final paragraph on this page. I believe
13 counsel for Michael Foundation and Harry McMullan spoke with
14 you about the possibility that the Jesus papers, which is part
15 IV of The Urantia Book, came all at once. Is there anything in
16 that paragraph that says they came all at once?
17 A. No.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Do we have the last page?
19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 29?
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Whatever the last one is.
21 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you read that last page for
22 me, please.
23 A. "The Urantia Foundation. It was these plates of The
24 Urantia Book which contributed to the basis for the formation
25 of The Urantia Foundation. This foundation, set up under the
00312 { 5:32:28pm}
01 laws of Illinois, was completed on January 11th, 1950. The
02 first board of trustees were: William H. or K. Hales,
03 president; William S. Sadler, Jr., vice president; Emma L.
04 Christensen, secretary; Wilfred C. Kellogg, treasurer; and
05 Edith Cook, assistant secretary."
06 Q. Keep reading.
07 A. "It was learned that one of the wealthy members of The
08 Forum desired to contribute $50,000 for the publication of the
09 book. By instruction, this was circumvented because, they told
10 us, it was best to give all parties concerned an opportunity to
11 contribute to the publication fund."
12 Q. Let me stop you for a second.
13 Who do you believe "they" in that paragraph to be?
14 A. The revelatory commission, the celestial beings.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 Please continue.
17 A. "Accordingly, an appeal was made for $50,000 to defray the
18 expense of printing 10,000 copies. In" -- it looks like "ink"
19 -- "In response" -- oh -- "the response was immediate. The sum
20 contributed was in excess of $49,000. The first money to reach
21 The Foundation office was $1,000 from the late Sir Hubert
22 Wilkins, the arctic explorer.
23 "The book was published under international copyright
24 October 12th, 1955."
25 Q. Where there's a discussion of funds raised, do you have an
00313 { 5:32:36pm}
01 understanding of where those funds came from?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. Who did those funds come from?
04 A. The members of The Forum and the Contact Commissioners.
05 Q. Let's move on to the subject. When I say "subject," I
06 mean the contact. Did Dr. Sadler tell you anything about him
07 personally?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Share with the jury what Dr. Sadler told you.
10 A. He said he was a businessman; he was a man, a male; and he
11 was remarkably unconcerned about what was trans- -- what he was
12 doing in connection with the Urantia Papers but he did evince
13 some interest in the papers.
14 Q. Did Dr. Sadler --
15 A. And the contents of the paper.
16 Q. Sorry.
17 Did Dr. Sadler say whether the subject was aware while he
18 was involved in the transmissions?
19 A. He said he was not aware.
20 Q. So at some point --
21 A. He referred to him as the sleeping subject.
22 Q. At some point, I gather, he became aware?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And how was that?
25 A. He was permitted to read the papers.
00314 { 5:32:40pm}
01 Q. Did he make any comments regarding his handwriting being
02 on the papers?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. What were those comments?
05 A. He said that the papers were written in his handwriting
06 and he said that whoever, whatever was writing, that they,
07 whatever was going on, they could cash a check and take money
08 out of his bank account.
09 Q. You said the patient had some interest. Is there anything
10 in The Urantia Book that supports what Dr. Sadler told you?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Are we talking now about the interest?
13 THE COURT: Restate your question, counselor.
14 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) We're talking about the interest of
15 the subject in the process?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you pick up -- I'm not sure of the exhibit number.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I approach, Your Honor?
19 Do you have exhibit 25?
20 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It hasn't been offered and
21 admitted.
22 THE COURT: I think it was the first day, The Urantia
23 Book was.
24 MR. HILL: We stipulated that it would be admitted as
25 Urantia Foundation exhibit 1-B, Your Honor.
00315 { 5:32:46pm}
01 THE COURT: 1-B. Do you have it marked?
02 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'll double check, Your Honor,
03 but I don't think so.
04 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you please do your best to
05 find that passage?
06 THE COURT: It will be admitted any how.
07 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay.
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Have you found it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You're better at that than you are reading off the board.
12 Would you please read that to the jury, please.
13 A. You can read this more easily from there than we could
14 read that from here.
15 The Urantia Book says, regarding the sleeping subject:
16 "He remains" --
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, Your Honor, I'm going to
18 object to this.
19 THE COURT: Overruled. It's admitted into evidence,
20 The Urantia Book, and he can recite from it.
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay.
22 A. "He remains quite unconcerned about the entire procedure."
23 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Okay. Thank you very much.
24 Now, there was some questions raised or some discussion
25 yesterday that might have carried on to today, I don't recall,
00316 { 5:32:51pm}
01 regarding the destruction of certain documents by The Contact
02 Commission. Can you tell me what documents were destroyed and
03 when and the purpose? Would you please tell me what documents
04 were destroyed by The Contact Commission.
05 A. Yes. The stenographer that was taking down all the verbal
06 communications from 1922 through 1955, I was told that there
07 were stacks -- there were many, many, maybe they used the word
08 "stacks" and I can see stacks of documents, and Dr. Sadler told
09 me that on the night before the books -- The Urantia Book was
10 supposed to roll off the press, which was October 12th, or at
11 least it was published October 12th, so I would imagine October
12 11th, that on the third floor at 533 they sat -- that they
13 burned --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to ask that that
15 testimony be stricken about what he imagines.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Let's restate the question so we
18 don't get any question about what was stricken.
19 Please tell the jury what documents were destroyed.
20 A. All of the record of the verbal communications, I was
21 told, were destroyed the night before the book was to roll off
22 the presses, by fire. They were burned.
23 Q. And at a later time, were the printing plates also
24 destroyed?
25 A. Yes, that's my understanding.
00317 { 5:32:57pm}
01 Q. Why? Did Dr. Sadler give you a reason for why these
02 things were destroyed?
03 A. The papers?
04 Q. The handwritten papers and the printing plates.
05 A. I don't think he said anything about the printing plates.
06 He just talked about the papers.
07 Q. Tell the jury about why.
08 A. The revelators said, "The only thing we want remaining of
09 this 50-year exchange that has gone on, the only thing we want
10 remaining is the material that's in The Urantia Book." We --
11 well, that's what he told me.
12 Q. Now, this entire process was discussed at some length.
13 There's been some question raised as to whether the people in
14 The Forum and The Contact Commission, and even the subject,
15 were on board with what was going on.
16 Did Dr. Sadler ever tell you that anybody in The Forum
17 complained about The Urantia Book being published or the
18 process that led up to it?
19 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to object to the form, Your
20 Honor. It's somewhat convoluted.
21 THE COURT: Restate your question again, counselor.
22 I'm not sure I fully --
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Certainly.
24 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Did Dr. Sadler tell you whether any
25 member of The Forum ever complained about The Contact
00318 { 5:33:03pm}
01 Commission -- I'm sorry -- The Urantia Foundation printing The
02 Urantia Book?
03 THE COURT: All right. Overruled. He can answer it.
04 A. He said nothing about anyone having ever complained about
05 The Contact Commission's or Urantia Foundation's management of
06 The Urantia Book.
07 Q. Did he tell you whether the subject ever raised any
08 complaints or asserted any legal rights?
09 A. He said nothing about that.
10 Q. Well, I believe you testified yesterday, and correct me if
11 I'm wrong, that the subject was alive in 1950, was he not?
12 A. I think I said in 1955 he was alive.
13 Q. Well, the book was published in 1955, wasn't it?
14 A. True.
15 Q. Dr. Sadler didn't say anything about the subject
16 complaining that someone was stealing his work?
17 A. He said nothing about that.
18 THE COURT: Counsel, let's take a recess at this
19 point.
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Certainly.
21 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll
22 be recess for 15 minutes. Be back in the jury box at the end
23 of 15 minutes. I'll remind you of my previous admonition.
24 Everyone please stand.
25 Court's in recess.
00319 { 5:33:07pm}
01
02 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
03 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
04 THE JURY:)
05 THE COURT: Mr. Schoenthaler, go ahead, sir.
06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Thank you.
07 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Mr. Keeler, are you familiar
08 with -- are you familiar with a document known as Urantia
09 Foundation Declaration of Trust?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How familiar are you with the document?
12 A. Very familiar.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Can you put -- Exhibit 5 has been
15 stipulated into evidence.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection.
17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Now, put up Urantia Foundation
18 exhibit 5, please.
19 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Is that the first page of the
20 Declaration of Trust?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you see underneath the three concentric blue circles,
23 what does it say directly underneath?
24 A. "Declaration of Trust Creating Urantia Foundation."
25 Q. And between the two items we just discussed in bold
00320 { 5:33:11pm}
01 caps -- you can look behind you. It's right under the
02 concentric circles.
03 A. "Urantia."
04 Q. And is there something next to "Urantia"?
05 A. A circle R.
06 Q. And what does that mean, Mr. Keeler?
07 A. It means that the word "Urantia" is a registered
08 trademark.
09 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you please turn to, I think,
11 page 3.
12 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you please -- What is the
13 Declaration of Trust, Mr. Keeler?
14 A. It is a document, the legal document that created -- that
15 brought into the existence The Urantia Foundation in January,
16 January 11th, 1950.
17 Q. And are the trustees of Urantia Foundation in any way
18 governed by the document?
19 A. They are, indeed. I was about to use the word
20 "absolutely."
21 Q. Would you please, underneath the title, "Declaration of
22 Trust," read the first paragraph and the first whereas clause.
23 You might -- well, you can probably see that.
24 A. "Know all men by these presents, that whereas, there has
25 been written a manuscript of a book entitled "The Urantia Book"
00321 { 5:33:18pm}
01 and there have been produced from this manuscript approximately
02 2,200 nickel-plated stereotype plates of patent base thickness
03 for the printing and reproduction of such book; and, whereas,
04 certain persons hereinafter referred to as the contributors,
05 being desirous that a foundation be created for the objects
06 herein expressed to be known as Urantia Foundation, have
07 contributed certain funds to that end, and said funds have been
08 expended for the production of said plates for the printing and
09 reproduction of The Urantia Book."
10 Q. Do you have an understanding as to who the persons in
11 quotes, "contributors," were?
12 A. I believe they were members of The Contact Commission and
13 members of The Forum.
14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you please turn it to page
15 5.
16 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you please read right there,
17 3.3.
18 A. "Preservation and Control of Reproduction of The Urantia
19 Book."
20 "It shall be the duty of the trustees to retain absolute
21 and unconditional control of all plates and other media for the
22 printing and reproduction of The Urantia Book and any
23 translations thereof, to make or cause to be made such
24 additional plates and other media as shall from time to time be
25 required to print and reproduce the Urantia Book and any
00322 { 5:33:24pm}
01 translation thereof, to retain the absolute and unconditional
02 control of the possession, custody, use, and disposition of all
03 such plates and other media for the printing and reproduction
04 of The Urantia Book and translations thereof, and to apply and
05 use the trust estate therefore."
06 Q. Do you feel any need as a trustee to follow that
07 admonition?
08 A. Absolutely.
09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Can you turn it -- put it on
10 section 3.1. I think it might be the previous page.
11 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Mr. Keeler, by the way, how much
12 are you paid for being a trustee of The Foundation?
13 A. We receive no compensation.
14 Q. Have the trustees of Urantia Foundation ever received any
15 compensation?
16 A. No trustee has ever received any compensation.
17 Q. Now, will you please read section 3.1.
18 A. "Duties of Trustees. Preservation of text of The Urantia
19 Book. It shall be the primary duty of the trustees to
20 perpetually preserve inviolate the text of The Urantia Book,
21 and the trustees shall use and employ such means, methods, and
22 facilities and apply and expend as much of the trust estate as
23 in the judgment of the trustees shall be necessary, proper, and
24 appropriate for the preserving and safekeeping of copies of the
25 original text of The Urantia Book, duly authenticated by the
00323 { 5:33:31pm}
01 trustees from loss, damage or destruction and from alteration,
02 modification, revision or change in any manner or in any
03 particular."
04 Q. There is a term in that paragraph: "inviolate." What is
05 your understanding of what that term means?
06 A. Changeless.
07 Q. Now, do you have an understanding as to the book Jesus - A
08 New Revelation? Do you know who publishes it?
09 A. I beg your pardon?
10 Q. Do you know who publishes the book Jesus - A New
11 Revelation, which has been admitted into evidence?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: We'll stipulate to its publisher,
14 Judge.
15 THE COURT: Let the record so reflect.
16 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) There was some conversation
17 yesterday with counsel for Mr. McMullan that there was an
18 opportunity for Urantia Foundation to have attribution in Jesus
19 - A New Revelation. Do you recall that testimony?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Would you please tell the jury why the trustees of Urantia
22 Foundation chose not to accept that offer.
23 THE WITNESS: Let me get a running start on this,
24 Judge.
25 THE COURT: Sure.
00324 { 5:33:37pm}
01 A. My great grandfather came into the State of Oklahoma to
02 trade with the Indians and married an Indian woman.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: Not responsive, Judge.
04 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll allow him some leeway.
05 A. And my family has been in the ranching business ever
06 since. Now, if somebody drove up to the ranch, our ranch, and
07 we had, let's say 2,000 cattle -- there are 2,000 pages in The
08 Urantia Book -- and we had 2,000 cattle, and they put in their
09 trucks, they put hundreds of those cattle, they put 800 of the
10 cattle and they drove off with the cattle, we would call them
11 rustlers.
12 And then if the rustlers were to come to us and say,
13 "Well, we're going to sell these cattle and we would like to
14 tell the buyers of the cattle that the cattle were raised on
15 your ranch," I can't imagine any of my family accepting that.
16 We would not tolerate that.
17 In effect, Mr. McMullan has done that; he's rustled the
18 cattle of Urantia Foundation and then he came to us and said,
19 "Well, do you want me to put in the front of my book that this
20 book is published by Urantia Foundation?"
21 Q. And when you say "this book," do you mean the attribution
22 of the Urantia -- that this is drawn from The Urantia Book?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you have an understanding of what a copyright is,
25 Mr. Keeler? A general understanding and not a legal
00325 { 5:33:44pm}
01 understanding.
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. Would you explain to the jury your understanding of what a
04 copyright is.
05 A. Well, if you write -- if any of you write, if you author a
06 book and you would like others not to copy your book or any
07 part of your book without your permission, then you take a
08 copyright out -- you copyright your book, and if someone
09 infringes, if someone tries to reproduce your book or do
10 something with your book without your permission, then you can
11 go to -- you can go to the court and ask them -- ask a judge to
12 stop that person who is doing with your book that which they do
13 not have permission to do.
14 Q. Do you have an understanding -- strike that.
15 Does Urantia Foundation own a copyright of The Urantia
16 Book?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Let's talk about something the counsel for Harry McMullan
19 raised. He mentioned a fair-use policy and showed it to you up
20 on the screen. Please describe, in very general terms, and not
21 in any legal terms, because I understand you're not a lawyer,
22 what is a fair-use policy?
23 A. This book that I talked about, you wrote a book, you might
24 say if somebody wants to quote from your book, you allow them
25 to do so but you may allow them only so many words. You don't
00326 { 5:33:50pm}
01 want to let them quote the -- well, I don't know, you may --
02 but you don't want to let them quote the whole book, so you
03 have a fair use. You say, "You can, without any problems with
04 me, any problems from the courts and the law, I will give you
05 or anyone permission to quote so many words from the book."
06 In the case of The Urantia Book, we allow anyone, without
07 asking for permission, to quote a certain number of words.
08 That number of words is somewhere between, depending on what
09 you want to do. If you're going to do something commercial
10 with it, you're going to use it in something from which you're
11 going to make money, somebody is going to write a book and
12 quote The Urantia Book in their book, then that individual can
13 quote up to 5,000 words from The Urantia Book without asking us
14 for permission.
15 And, also, if you're a teacher in school and you want your
16 students to read some of The Urantia Book, you can quote up to
17 50,000 words. See, that's a noncommercial use, so we're more
18 liberal with our fair use or permission to quote. Really, it
19 could be called a permission-to-quote policy.
20 Q. Now, do you have an understanding of how many papers or
21 pages Jesus - A New Revelation takes directly from The Urantia
22 Book?
23 A. Well, I know it's about -- I've got a copy here -- I think
24 it's about a thousand-page book.
25 Q. Would you hold up The Urantia Book and Jesus - A New
00327 { 5:33:57pm}
01 Revelation, please.
02 A. Hold up The Urantia Book, and hold up Jesus - A New
03 Revelation.
04 Q. In general terms, about what percentage does Jesus - A New
05 Revelation take from The Urantia Book? What percentage of The
06 Urantia Book is copied in Jesus - A New Revelation?
07 A. Well, Urantia Book is about 2,000 pages. This book is
08 formatted differently, so there are about 1,000 pages in here.
09 But those 1,000 pages are 800 of the 2000 pages. So it's about
10 a third of The Urantia Book.
11 Q. Is that within The Urantia Foundation's fair-use policy?
12 A. Way, way beyond our fair-use policy.
13 Q. We're going to switch the topic now to something that's
14 been discussed: the domain names.
15 Now, do you have an understanding as to a claim Michael
16 Foundation has or had in this case concerning the Urantia
17 Foundation's trademarks?
18 A. Would you repeat that question?
19 Q. Did Harry McMullan have a claim in this case concerning
20 The Urantia Foundation's trademarks?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What was that claim?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the
24 response to that question.
25 THE COURT: I'm not sure he has the legal expertise
00328 { 5:34:04pm}
01 to explain that, counselor. I think you'll be given an
02 opportunity to.
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll wait. Thank you.
04 THE COURT: I think it might be beyond -- he may be
05 familiar with it, maybe better than some of the lawyers in the
06 courtroom and certainly the Judge, but I believe it would be
07 better if we restrict that to someone with a legal background.
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: That's fine, Your Honor.
09 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Do you know what a registered
10 trademark is?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would you explain to the jury what a registered trademark
13 is.
14 A. It's somewhat like a copyright. Coca Cola, for example,
15 they have the name Coca Cola and they don't want other people
16 using that name. They want to formally legally own that name
17 and they have registered the name Coca Cola so that you and I
18 cannot commercially use the name Coca Cola. We can't go out
19 and start selling Coca Cola hamburgers using their name. Also,
20 we can't do anything, even though we may not be making money
21 from it, we could not do anything that would be confusing.
22 Otherwise, the Coca Cola organization would object. So, to
23 trademark a name is a way to establish legal ownership in a
24 name or a word or a symbol.
25 Q. Mr. Keeler, is that a legal definition or a layman's
00329 { 5:34:10pm}
01 definition?
02 A. It is my definition, which is a layman's definition.
03 Q. Do you have any legal experience?
04 A. No.
05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
06 Put 4-A up, please.
07 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Could you turn around. You can
08 probably see it better over there. Can you tell the jury what
09 that document is?
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, we have no objection to
11 that series of exhibits.
12 THE COURT: It will be admitted.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Thank you.
14 A. This is -- appears to be a copy of The Urantia
15 Foundation's registration of its trademarks.
16 Q. Is that the name that has been trademarked by that
17 ribboned copy?
18 A. I beg your pardon?
19 Q. Is that the trademark that is being registered with the
20 federal government?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that's Urantia, is it not?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you put 4-B up, please.
25 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) And is that -- what is this,
00330 { 5:34:15pm}
01 Mr. Keeler?
02 A. It shows The Urantia Foundation has registered a trademark
03 in --
04 Q. For what purpose, Mr. Keeler?
05 A. Oh. For books in class 38, I-N-T.
06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Can you go back to 4-A, please.
07 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Can you tell the jury the first
08 document that we pulled up and I've pulled up again, can you
09 tell the jury, by looking at the principal register, what
10 services or goods Urantia is registered for?
11 MR. ABOWITZ: I have no objection to leading
12 questions on these, Judge, to kind of move it along.
13 THE COURT: Go ahead. Go ahead.
14 A. For printed publications, books, booklets, brochures,
15 pamphlets, newsletters, bulletins and leaflets concerning
16 educational, religious, or philosophical subject.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Can you put up 4-C for me, please?
19 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Can you see that, Mr. Keeler? Can
20 you tell me what word is trademarked there?
21 A. Yes, the word "Urantian."
22 Q. Can you tell me what is the goods and services it is
23 registered for?
24 A. For periodical publications, namely, newsletters,
25 reporting events and developments relating to the operation and
00331 { 5:34:22pm}
01 activities of an educational foundation.
02 Q. Mr. Keeler, what's the address of Urantia Foundation
03 headquarters in Chicago?
04 A. 533 Diversey Parkway.
05 Q. Does Urantia Foundation have a toll-free telephone number?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. What is that?
08 A. There are three. 1-800-Urantia, 1-888-Urantia, and
09 1-877-Urantia.
10 Q. Do you know whether The Urantia Foundation has ever been
11 in a dispute concerning a toll-free number with Urantia's
12 trademark in the number?
13 A. I do know of such a dispute.
14 Q. Would you please tell the jury a little bit about the
15 dispute.
16 A. The organization of which Mr. McMullan is the treasurer, a
17 group called The Fellowship, attempted to obtain the number
18 1 -- I think it was one of the 800s. Oh, I know. It was
19 1-888-Urantia. And we informed them that we regarded their
20 having done that as a violation of our registration in the
21 marks, and they surrendered the number.
22 Q. Mr. Keeler, can you tell the jury what a domain name is?
23 A. We're talking the Internet now. If you establish a web
24 site, your company or you as an individual, then you have to
25 have some name, some identifier, and that identifier is called
00332 { 5:34:28pm}
01 a domain name. It's your domain. It's your identifier. In
02 trucking language, it's your handle.
03 Q. In what you're describing, would that start with a WWW?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. It might be WWW.CocaCola.com?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Or CocaCola.org?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Or anything dot-com?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does Urantia Foundation maintain a web site?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Would you describe in some detail the web site itself and
14 what services or goods you offer on the web site.
15 A. Yes. If you go to the Urantia -- it's called Urantia.org
16 -- "org" for organization and "com" has to do with commercial.
17 I think Coca Cola would be CocaCola.com. But anyway, it's
18 Urantia.org. And if you went there, you would find The Urantia
19 Book, the entire Urantia Book on our web site. You would find
20 information about different activities and events that were
21 related to Urantia Foundation.
22 If you wanted -- If you went to our web site and you
23 wanted to get in contact with other individuals who were
24 readers of The Urantia Book, then there is a means by which you
25 can do that through our web site.
00333 { 5:34:35pm}
01 Q. The web site again is what, WWW what, dot Urantia?
02 A. Yes, dot Urantia.org.
03 Q. I think you testified earlier that you do not really know
04 the exact domain names that Harry McMullan registered; is that
05 true?
06 A. True.
07 Q. Do you know whether or not they have the term "Urantia" or
08 "Urantian" in them?
09 A. I do know they have the term "Urantia" or "Urantian" in
10 them.
11 Q. Well, has Urantia Foundation taken any steps to register
12 the same domain names?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You've taken steps to register the same domain names that
15 Harry McMullan registered?
16 A. Well, I think once he registered them, then we could not
17 register them. He was occupying that space.
18 Q. So there was some 40 out there, and I don't know what it
19 is, that registers names?
20 A. That's true.
21 Q. And there can only be one registered domain name of the
22 same name?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. It's a little similar to an address or a toll-free phone
25 number?
00334 { 5:34:40pm}
01 A. Yes, exactly.
02 Q. Mr. Keeler, I have one more question.
03 Regarding the domain names, what does Urantia Foundation
04 want in this litigation?
05 A. Would you repeat that?
06 Q. What does Urantia Foundation want in this litigation
07 regarding the domain names?
08 A. We want -- well, the Judge has already declared --
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
10 that.
11 THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Just answer the
12 question.
13 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Just tell the jury what Urantia
14 Foundation wants.
15 A. We want Harry to surrender these domain names to us, which
16 we feel we are the rightful owners of in the same manner that
17 the organization of which he's the treasurer, The Fellowship,
18 surrendered their 1-888-Urantia telephone number to us.
19 Q. Without divulging the exact amount, can you tell the jury
20 whether Urantia Foundation has spent attorney's fees on trying
21 to -- on seeking a return of the domain names in this case?
22 MR. ABOWITZ: We're going to object to that at this
23 stage, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: I think he can outline what they're
25 requesting or asking in the way of a remedy. He doesn't have
00335 { 5:34:47pm}
01 to be a lawyer to do that.
02 A. For just the domain names?
03 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) I don't want an exact number. I
04 just want to know if Urantia Foundation has expended attorney's
05 fees and costs.
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Would Urantia Foundation also seek to recover those
08 attorney's fees and costs?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is there anything else Urantia Foundation would seek to
11 recover regarding the domain names?
12 A. Not that comes to mind.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Thank you. That's all.
14 THE COURT: Any redirect?
15 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes.
16 May I approach the bench?
17 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
18 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
19 MR. ABOWITZ: I want to renew my request now to get
20 into Mr. McMullan's offer of the domain names to The Urantia
21 Foundation. The door has been opened.
22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I was very careful not
23 to open the door.
24 THE COURT: Pardon?
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I was very careful not to open the
00336 { 5:34:51pm}
01 door. I just asked what they wanted.
02 THE COURT: Wherein do you think he opened the door
03 now?
04 MR. ABOWITZ: When he asked Mr. Keeler what he wanted
05 from this litigation.
06 THE COURT: That's only requesting what their relief
07 is requested in this case. That doesn't open the door.
08 MR. PLOURDE: It's the timing aspect of it because
09 he's saying, "Because of all this, we've incurred all these
10 fees," and if they had taken the settlement offer that we
11 offered way back when, they wouldn't have incurred all those
12 fees.
13 THE COURT: I think not, counsel. I believe you
14 ought to stay away from it.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I can keep trying?
16 THE COURT: You can keep trying and I'll sustain the
17 objection.
18 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
19 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
22 Q. Mr. Keeler, the document, which is the Declaration of
23 Trust, was prepared in what year?
24 A. I have reason to believe it was --
25 Q. Let's find out rather than -- I think it's on there.
00337 { 5:35:00pm}
01 A. Yeah. It was in preparation before January 11th, 1950,
02 but officially it took effect on January 11th, 1950.
03 Q. Was the patient still alive?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. Was he consulted --
06 A. To my knowledge.
07 Q. Was he consulted about this?
08 A. I don't know.
09 Q. Is there any documentation that would indicate that he was
10 consulted about this?
11 A. None that I know of.
12 Q. Is there any documentation to establish that he
13 essentially waived any interest that he had in this?
14 A. None that I know of.
15 Q. Or that he assigned any interest that he had in this?
16 A. No assignments that I'm aware of.
17 Q. So this document, by the contributors, was put together
18 excluding anything that -- any interest that the patient may
19 have had?
20 A. I think so.
21 Q. Now, these conversations with Dr. Sadler took place when?
22 A. The conversation that I had with Dr. Sadler?
23 Q. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
24 A. The one big one was in 1962.
25 Q. And that big one lasted how long?
00338 { 5:35:05pm}
01 A. Between three and five hours.
02 Q. Are you a baseball fan?
03 A. Not really.
04 Q. Do you follow any sports?
05 A. Sometimes.
06 Q. Do you know any major -- the name of any major sports team
07 that won a championship in 1962?
08 A. I could make a stab at it.
09 Q. Well, this is not the millionaire now.
10 A. Not definitively, no.
11 Q. And you certainly have to admit that you definitively
12 remember this conversation that you had with Dr. Sadler?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. Did you record it?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you take notes on it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you had -- and I don't mean to be facetious -- have
19 you had a memory course on how to remember these things?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what's the name of the course?
22 A. It was a course on tape that I took. I don't recall the
23 name of it.
24 Q. You took a memory course and you don't recall the name of
25 it? Thank you. I'll stop there. Thank you.
00339 { 5:35:12pm}
01 Now, you told me --
02 A. The older I get --
03 Q. I'm moving on. I can't get any better than that, sir.
04 Now, you told me -- yesterday, we had a conversation about
05 this oath; correct?
06 A. About what?
07 Q. The oath.
08 A. The oath?
09 Q. Of secrecy.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Let me see if I can turn to exhibit 8.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Sir, I believe it's exhibit 20. Can
13 you help me out here?
14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: What page is that, sir?
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I believe it's exhibit -- I'm sorry.
16 Page 20 of exhibit 8.
17 May I approach the --
18 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You have it on the screen behind you.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: That's not much better. Do you have a
20 contrast you can put on that that we can see it a little
21 better?
22 That doesn't help out very much.
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) As I read this, what is this word? Can
24 you make it out?
25 A. "Reasons," I think. "Reasons for Silence Regarding
00340 { 5:35:16pm}
01 Details."
02 Q. And it's details of the origin of the book; is that
03 correct?
04 A. That's what it says.
05 Q. And you told me yesterday, I believe, that this oath of
06 secrecy taken by the Contact Commissioners and the members of
07 The Forum involved in some part the facts associated with the
08 origin of The Urantia Book.
09 A. That's the way I understand it.
10 Q. And nothing you have testified to in response to your
11 lawyer's questions changes that answer; is that correct?
12 A. It doesn't change my answer.
13 Q. And you were never subjected, I think you say, to that
14 oath?
15 A. True.
16 Q. And that oath lasted how long? The people that took it,
17 was it something that they were essentially to obey until their
18 death?
19 A. I think so.
20 Q. All right. And did Dr. Sadler take that oath?
21 A. As far as I know.
22 Q. He did?
23 And in 1962, when you met him, how many times had you met
24 him?
25 A. That was the first time.
00341 { 5:35:21pm}
01 Q. And you were not a member of The Forum?
02 A. True.
03 Q. You were not a member of The Contact Commission?
04 A. True.
05 Q. You were, as far as he knew, a person who was merely
06 interested at the time with respect to the teachings of The
07 Urantia Book?
08 A. True.
09 Q. What your testimony is here, in this five-hour session he
10 related to you all the facts about the origin of The Urantia
11 Book?
12 A. I dare say he didn't begin to relate to me all of the
13 facts relating to the origin of The Urantia Book.
14 Q. But he took an oath not to reveal those facts but he told
15 you essentially the facts --
16 A. Well, --
17 Q. Let me finish my question.
18 -- facts regarding the origin of The Urantia Book; is that
19 what you're telling us?
20 A. Yes. It's obvious he felt comfortable to share with me
21 some of those facts.
22 Q. All right. Now, in that connection, is it true that over
23 the years, in response of The Foundation's response to the
24 people that were inquiring of it, that the response would be to
25 people who asked about the origin essentially, "Don't pay any
00342 { 5:35:28pm}
01 attention to the origin; your attention should be directed to
02 the substance of The Urantia Book which will reveal that to
03 you"?
04 A. That's a fairly accurate statement.
05 Q. Now, did Dr. Sadler say, "I am not concerned and you
06 should not be concerned with the origin but you should, if you
07 are a follower of this book, read the book and anything that
08 you need to know about the origin will be revealed to you in
09 the book"?
10 A. I think that he said something to that effect.
11 Q. You didn't mention that before I asked, did you?
12 A. Well, I said I think he said something. I don't know that
13 he did.
14 Q. You don't know?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Well, if that's what they told everybody else, can you
17 think of a reason why you wouldn't have been told the same
18 thing?
19 A. No, but I don't recall specifically his having told me
20 that.
21 Q. All right. Now, can you please, sir -- let me see if I
22 can find the page here.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: I apologize, Judge. My copy of this
24 doesn't have those sequential numbers on it.
25 Please, can you give me -- I tried to number these
00343 { 5:35:35pm}
01 counting while the testimony was going on. I have it marked as
02 16, which is a distribution of The Urantia Book. May I have
03 that, please?
04 Can you scroll it down?
05 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you see that from here or your
06 screen?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you highlight that last
08 paragraph?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Incidentally, whose mark is that?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Is it yours?
13 A. Could be. I don't know where your copy is.
14 Q. This is not my copy. This is your copy.
15 A. Oh.
16 Q. Your Urantia Foundation's copy.
17 A. Oh, I don't know. I don't know. Sometimes I make marks
18 in columns somewhat similar to that.
19 Q. Do you know if the exhibit in evidence is your copy of
20 this?
21 A. I don't.
22 Q. Read this last paragraph for me, please.
23 A. "One thing should be made clear: Nothing is done to
24 interfere with the energetic and enthusiastic efforts of any
25 individual to introduce The Urantia Book to his varied contacts
00344 { 5:35:42pm}
01 and human associations."
02 Q. Is Mr. McMullan energetic?
03 A. Very.
04 Q. And he's very enthusiastic?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. And he's very energetic and enthusiastic in introducing
07 The Urantia Book and Jesus - A New Revelation, which is part of
08 the Urantia Book, to all of his associates; is that correct?
09 A. You could say that.
10 Q. Would you --
11 MR. ABOWITZ: I have this listed as page number 23.
12 Would you scroll that down, please. The last paragraph.
13 That's fine.
14 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I don't want to labor through the
15 reading. Can you read that without too much trouble? Can we
16 do it fairly quickly?
17 A. Perhaps.
18 Q. Let's give it a try.
19 A. "What has just been recorded" -- I don't know that word --
20 oh -- "refers more particularly to parts I, II, and III of The
21 Urantia Book. Part IV, the Jesus Papers, had a little
22 different origin. They were produced by a midway commission
23 and were completed one year later than the other papers. The
24 first three parts were completed and certified to us in A.D.
25 1934. The Jesus Papers were not so delivered to us until
00345 { 5:35:47pm}
01 1935."
02 Q. So this says that I, II and III, the parts of The Urantia
03 Book, were completed. What does that word mean? Done, over;
04 correct?
05 A. Yes. But --
06 Q. And certified. Who did the certification?
07 A. I don't know.
08 Q. Was it a human being?
09 A. No, I think not.
10 Q. And certified to us in 1934. It doesn't say
11 1940-something, does it? Does it?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And the part IV was delivered -- so delivered, completed
14 and certified in 1935. That's what that says; right?
15 A. True.
16 Q. And that is, as you've identified it, a statement of
17 Dr. Sadler who has the utmost, foremost knowledge about the
18 subject; correct?
19 A. True.
20 Q. All right. Now, notwithstanding this recitation, there
21 was an indication in your testimony that there was missing
22 links about the origin of The Urantia Book; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And as I understand the testimony, those links continue to
25 be missing; they are not revealed in the book and they have not
00346 { 5:35:54pm}
01 been revealed to anybody else, they are a mystery; is that a
02 fair statement?
03 A. True.
04 Q. So, the statement that we read earlier about The Urantia
05 Foundation being forthright in the information that it gave its
06 lawyers and the various governmental agencies was true except
07 for these missing links?
08 A. I suppose so.
09 Q. Now, there is nothing that you have testified to in
10 response to your lawyer's questions that would indicate that
11 your earlier testimony that all of The Urantia Book was at one
12 time in the handwriting of the patient contact personality; is
13 that correct? You haven't changed that testimony?
14 A. I have not changed that.
15 Q. And everything that he wrote ended up in that book as he
16 wrote it?
17 A. Yes, with qualification.
18 Q. All right.
19 A. Wait a minute. You said, "As he wrote it."
20 Q. I understand we have a difference of agreement. Let me
21 rephrase the question.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Judge?
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) We agree that whatever is in that book
25 was in the hand of the patient contact personality?
00347 { 5:36:01pm}
01 A. In the handwriting --
02 Q. In his handwriting?
03 A. -- of the contact personality. Yes.
04 Q. We have no difference about that?
05 A. True.
06 Q. All right. You haven't changed that?
07 A. I have not.
08 Q. All right. Now, with respect to the Jesus Papers, part
09 IV, you have no information, do you, that would indicate that
10 all -- that that was not delivered as a complete book or a
11 complete part at the time it was certified and completed in
12 1935, do you?
13 A. I have no such information.
14 Q. Now, the money that you talked about, the generous
15 donations from the members of The Contact Commission, Forum,
16 and those people that were interested in having the information
17 contained in The Urantia Book spread to more people through
18 this publication, all of those donations came after the
19 completion of the book after 1934 and 1935; correct?
20 A. True.
21 Q. The book had already been completed and certified;
22 correct?
23 A. That's what it said.
24 Q. All right. Well, that's what we've got. That's the
25 information we have; right?
00348 { 5:36:06pm}
01 A. There was additional information in that history --
02 Q. All right.
03 A. -- that would have made it appropriate to have an
04 adjective in there to say it was completed but not definitively
05 completed.
06 Q. Is that a Bill Clinton answer?
07 THE COURT: We will not interject politics into
08 religion, counselor.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: I withdraw the religion part of the
10 question.
11 THE WITNESS: That all depends on what the meaning of
12 "is" is.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: We don't have that much time, sir.
14 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, the destruction of papers, the
15 handwritten papers were destroyed?
16 A. True.
17 Q. They were destroyed after they were transcribed into type
18 into typewritten papers?
19 A. True.
20 Q. The typewritten papers were destroyed when?
21 A. I don't know. I could conjecture. I don't know.
22 Q. Now, you indicated that one of the guiding principles here
23 was, I believe, when the book was published, all these papers
24 -- by that time, all the papers were to be destroyed.
25 A. Yes.
00349 { 5:36:13pm}
01 Q. We didn't mention this earlier, but Ms. Christensen, the
02 lady that signed a lot of these letters who was in a leadership
03 capacity with The Urantia Foundation, she passed away when?
04 A. 1982.
05 Q. Are you aware that she had locked file cabinets that no
06 one had access to?
07 A. No.
08 Q. Are you aware that she had information that pertained to
09 the origin and the matters of the production of The Urantia
10 Book that she dest- -- that were destroyed at her death?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you read them?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were you permitted to?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So nobody knows what's in those documents?
17 A. False.
18 Q. Who knows?
19 A. Persons --
20 Q. Who -- I'm sorry. Finish your answer.
21 A. Persons who read those. Martin Myers, for example.
22 Q. All right. So there are people that were permitted to
23 read them?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But they are destroyed?
00350 { 5:36:18pm}
01 A. To my knowledge, yes.
02 Q. We have no record of what was in those documents?
03 A. False.
04 Q. What is the record?
05 A. There was something on the Internet sometime ago that
06 purported to be those papers.
07 Q. Who put it on the Internet?
08 A. Dennis Shields.
09 Q. An employee of The Urantia Foundation?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Was that something you tried to stop?
12 A. Didn't know about it until it was already there.
13 Q. If you had, would you have tried to stop it?
14 A. I doubt it.
15 Q. Okay. I've got one last question.
16 Did the patient contact personality, was he ever informed
17 this book was going to be published?
18 A. I don't know.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Schoenthaler?
21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
23 Q. Mr. Keeler, if you did like baseball and you wanted to be
24 a baseball player and the team you followed won the World
25 Series in 1962, do you think you would remember?
00351 { 5:36:25pm}
01 A. Yes.
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: That's all.
03 THE COURT: You may step down.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have one question?
05 THE COURT: Well, only two bites at the apple but
06 I'll give you a nibble. Go ahead.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: All right.
08 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
09 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
10 Q. Would that be before or after the memory program you
11 couldn't remember?
12 A. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds I might be
13 incriminated.
14 THE COURT: I'll uphold his refusal.
15 You may step down.
16 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
17 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: I call Harry McMullan to the stand.
19 THE COURT: Have you been previously sworn?
20 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
21 THE COURT: Raise your right hand and be sworn.
22 (WITNESS SWORN)
23 Harry McMullan,
24 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
25 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
00352 {00:00:00PM}
01 THE COURT: Mr. McMullan, be seated and state your
02 full name and spell your full name for the jury and the court
03 record, please.
04 THE WITNESS: Harry McMullan, M-c-M-U-L-L-A-N.
05 DIRECT EXAMINATION
06 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
07 Q. Mr. McMullan, you are a resident of Oklahoma City?
08 A. Yes, sir.
09 Q. How long have you lived here?
10 A. About 25 years.
11 Q. Can you tell us what brought you to Oklahoma?
12 A. I was trying to make a living.
13 Q. Well, that's a good answer.
14 A. It was oil boom time and it seemed like a good place to
15 come.
16 Q. And where did you come from?
17 A. North Carolina.
18 Q. Were you born and raised in North Carolina?
19 A. I was born in North Carolina and raised most of my life
20 there.
21 Q. And how old were you when you came to Oklahoma?
22 A. I'll have to do a little arithmetic here. I think I was
23 about 29.
24 Q. At the time you came to Oklahoma, had you already
25 developed your interest in The Urantia Book and its affairs?
00353 {00:00:00PM}
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. When did that occur?
03 A. That occurred in 1967.
04 Q. And can you relate for us briefly, sir, how that did
05 occur.
06 A. I was a junior at the University of North Carolina and I
07 found the book in a book store there and was much taken with
08 it.
09 Q. You asked for the book or you were just browsing?
10 A. No, I was just looking around the book store because I
11 love books and I love to read. It was a used book store and it
12 was for sale for 50 cents and that seemed like a good bargain
13 for a book that size.
14 Q. And were you affected by the book?
15 A. Deeply.
16 Q. Were you affected deeply by the book the first time you
17 read it?
18 A. Yes, I was, deeply.
19 Q. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how you
20 were affected?
21 A. I first have to say the part of the book that I read, I
22 read the part about Jesus, which is the part that we're talking
23 about here, and I --
24 Q. Well, could you turn to exhibit 1-B and more specifically
25 relate to the jury, please --
00354 {00:00:00PM}
01 A. This one?
02 Q. Yeah.
03 A. Well, the life of Jesus starts somewhere about here and it
04 goes to the end. And, anyway, after I bought the book, I went
05 home and started reading it and basically, you know, bleary
06 eyes and everything else, not dissimilar to the way Mr. Keeler
07 described what happened to him. I just read it. It was the
08 part about the life of Jesus that affected me and that led to a
09 relationship with Jesus that was meaningful to me, deeply, and
10 more meaningful than I had had before.
11 Q. Did you have a religious affiliation at the time you read
12 that book?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And was that religious affiliation Christian?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So the life of Jesus was not new information to you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. What was different, if anything, about its treatment in
19 this book?
20 A. Could I -- pardon me. I was going to ask for water.
21 THE WITNESS: Judge, would you mind?
22 THE COURT: No. It's right there. Careful of the
23 lid, that it doesn't fall in your lap.
24 A. Could you restate the question, please?
25 THE COURT: The question was what was the difference
00355 {00:00:00PM}
01 between that version of Jesus' life and what you previously
02 knew.
03 A. The principal thing was not a difference but it was an
04 elaboration because the story in The Urantia Book goes into
05 Jesus' life on more of a day-by-day basis. It's really a good
06 story, and at the time I didn't know whether it was just a
07 story or whether it's the truth. But, nonetheless, it had the
08 effect of bringing me closer to Jesus Christ, and so that's the
09 thing that has driven me in my interest in this book for all
10 those years.
11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) We'll come back to that.
12 Let's go back to looking for work in Oklahoma City.
13 Were you successful?
14 A. I wasn't looking for work. I purchased a business.
15 Q. All right. And what business did you purchase?
16 A. It was an oil field valve remanufacturing company.
17 Q. And had you had experience in running businesses before
18 that?
19 A. Not really.
20 Q. So this was kind of a bold step in your entrepreneurial
21 career?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was it successful?
24 A. Ultimately, no. It was successful during the time that
25 all businesses like that were successful in the late '70s and
00356 {00:00:00PM}
01 the early '80s and it made lots of money. And then starting
02 with the Penn Square collapse and extending over another, you
03 know, three or four years, it really went to nothing.
04 Q. Did you involve yourself in any other businesses at that
05 time?
06 A. Yes, I did.
07 Q. Can you tell us what that business or businesses were?
08 A. Yes. I purchased a business from some partners. It's a
09 metal building business called Alliance Steel.
10 Q. And do you still own that business?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And when did you purchase it?
13 A. 1978.
14 Q. Where is that business located now in Oklahoma City?
15 A. It's located about two-and-a-half miles south of I-40 on
16 Council Road.
17 Q. And what is the business of that company?
18 A. It's a manufacturer of prefabricated metal buildings,
19 large metal buildings.
20 Q. Now, let's go back to the effect that this book had on
21 you.
22 You indicated when you read it that you didn't know
23 whether it was true or not but it affected you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you pursue your interest in that book and that portion
00357 {00:00:00PM}
01 of that book?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. How did you do that?
04 A. Well, it really would be the story of what I've done in
05 the last 30 years, so I don't think everybody wants to hear
06 that.
07 Q. Well, we'll hear bits and pieces of it. Let's talk about
08 what you did at that time to expand your knowledge and
09 participation in the Urantian affairs, if I may.
10 A. The first major thing that I did was in around three or
11 four years after that I joined an outreach ministry in
12 California.
13 Q. For those three or four years, from your first reading of
14 the book until you joined the outreach ministry, did you
15 continue somehow to involve yourself in the reading of the book
16 or Urantian affairs?
17 A. Yes, I did, very much.
18 Q. What did you do?
19 A. Mostly I read the book.
20 Q. And --
21 A. I had a job as a security guard during those years and it
22 was a midnight shift thing and I would -- I operated these
23 bulletproof glass doors and so nobody was coming through the
24 facility, so just for a couple of years I read The Urantia
25 Book.
00358 {00:00:00PM}
01 Q. How many times have you read the book?
02 A. I'm sure at least -- probably between 20 and 30 times.
03 But parts of it, 100 times.
04 Q. Now, can you briefly describe the ministry, the outreach
05 ministry, for the Court and ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
06 A. Yes. It's the same one that Richard Keeler was talking
07 about.
08 Q. This is this Mr. Grimsley's radio ministry in California?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you meet Mr. Keeler there?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. And when was that?
13 A. I met Mr. Keeler in -- I think it was in 1969.
14 Q. In connection with that ministry?
15 A. Prior to going there.
16 Q. And what was this ministry's -- what was it doing, what
17 was its purpose?
18 A. Its purpose was to bring the teachings of The Urantia Book
19 to people.
20 Q. And how were they doing that?
21 A. The person in charge of the ministry would go out onto
22 campuses and ask kind of cute questions about religion and then
23 he would edit these tapes and syndicate the broadcast to
24 different radio stations.
25 Q. And what was your role in that ministry?
00359 {00:00:00PM}
01 A. It really wasn't much. I sent the tapes out. I don't
02 know. I did everything people wanted me to do but it wasn't --
03 I was a volunteer. Is that what you meant?
04 Q. No, I want to know what your responsibilities were.
05 A. I was mostly in charge of distributing the tapes to the
06 stations.
07 Q. You've already told us you did that on a volunteer basis?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. You were not paid?
10 A. No.
11 Q. How long did that last?
12 A. Two years.
13 Q. And what did you do next in connection with your
14 involvement with Urantian affairs?
15 A. Let's see. That would take us to early 1973 and my next
16 involvement that really -- I mean, all along I was going to
17 conferences and reading the book and getting to know people
18 that shared that interest.
19 Q. Well, let me interrupt you, if I may. Tell us a little
20 bit about the conferences. Were they quarterly, annual, all
21 the time, or what?
22 A. There have been summer Urantian conferences for, oh, gosh,
23 for at least 30 years. Every third year, there's a big
24 conference. The bigger conferences lately have had around
25 1,000 people. The off-year conferences, maybe we'll have a
00360 {00:00:00PM}
01 couple hundred people.
02 Q. What occurs at those conferences?
03 A. Well, there's study of the presentations on all sorts of
04 topics in The Urantia Book. There's normally in the evening
05 there's worship, there's prayer. They start off with a --
06 often they'll start off with a spiritual retreat of some kind
07 where people get together, you know, and then have prayer and
08 meditation and song and, you know --
09 Q. You mentioned to us the first time that you read the book
10 you didn't know whether it was true or not. Did you at some
11 point in this path conclude that it was or was not true?
12 A. Yes. Quite early I concluded that it was true.
13 Q. That what was true?
14 A. That The Urantia Book was true as it had been represented
15 to be authored by celestial beings.
16 Q. Did that become the basis for your religion?
17 A. No, it didn't. It was what the book said; not what the
18 story was about, how it might have gotten here.
19 Q. May I use the word "principles," would that be accurate,
20 the principles set forth in the book became the basis of your
21 religion?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is it today?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And it has been for what period of time?
00361 {00:00:00PM}
01 A. Oh, since the '60s. Since the late '60s.
02 Q. Did you attend these conferences regularly?
03 A. I think I missed one maybe in the last 25 years due to --
04 I can't remember -- something happened that I couldn't be
05 there.
06 Q. Did you have any membership in any of these organizations
07 that were related to the Urantia Foundation?
08 A. I became a member of Urantia Brotherhood sometime in the
09 late 1960s, I think, possibly early '70s, and I became -- I was
10 elected to the board of directors in 1979 and have been in that
11 position ever since.
12 Q. And that was before you got to Oklahoma City?
13 A. No, I was already here.
14 Q. Just here?
15 A. Well, I came here in late '75 --
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. -- and this is '79 that I was elected to the board.
18 Q. And what did you do -- well, first of all, before you got
19 on the board, what were the activities of The Brotherhood?
20 A. What The Brotherhood would try to do is simply get The
21 Urantia Book and the teachings in The Urantia Book out into the
22 world is the main -- and distribute The Urantia Book.
23 Q. And how did The Brotherhood do that?
24 A. It was the sales agent for Urantia Foundation through what
25 Mr. Keeler described as the -- as The Urantia Brotherhood
00362 {00:00:00PM}
01 Corporation. He very accurately described that. It's sort of
02 the same thing. It distributed the book and sent it out to
03 people that inquired.
04 Q. Did The Brotherhood go out and have one-on-one or small
05 group meetings with people that had expressed interest in the
06 book or the movement or the teachings?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. And you did that as a member of The Brotherhood?
09 A. No, I didn't do that as a representative of The
10 Brotherhood. I just did it -- I've done it for years and years
11 just as an individual. I -- Could you rephrase your question,
12 please?
13 Q. Let me ask it in a different way.
14 How many copies of The Urantia Book have you purchased
15 over the years?
16 A. I don't know. Maybe 4- or 5,000.
17 Q. And have you distributed them?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. To people that have an interest?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And to people that would like to have an interest?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And people that you thought should have an interest?
24 A. That I hoped would have an interest.
25 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. You hoped would have an interest.
00363 {00:00:00PM}
01 And you have --
02 A. I don't try to dictate to people whether they should have
03 an interest or not.
04 Q. All right. But if you had that hope, say, with respect to
05 me, you would essentially give me a copy of the book?
06 A. I would ask you if you would like a copy of the book.
07 Q. And if I said yes, you would give me a copy of the book?
08 A. Then I would try to get you a book.
09 Q. And during the course of the years that you purchased
10 4- or 5,000 copies of this book, did you interrelate with the
11 people to whom you gave the book about the teachings in the
12 book?
13 A. Yeah, uh-huh.
14 Q. Were you active in these conferences in the -- I'm going
15 to use the word study group -- and if I use a word or term with
16 which you don't agree, stop me and give me the right term,
17 please.
18 A. All right.
19 Q. Were you involved with these study groups in these
20 conferences that took place in the summer?
21 A. Well, we're talking about two different things. The
22 conferences just generally occur and they typically occur in
23 the summertime.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. And with that there are formal presentations and they
00364 {00:00:00PM}
01 typically go on four or five days and they're somewhere usually
02 in the United States.
03 Q. And that's different from what we were talking about?
04 A. The study groups is like the house church thing and they
05 meet in people's homes typically around the United States, and
06 there's some here in Oklahoma City.
07 Q. And can you --
08 A. That's sort of a weekly event.
09 Q. All right. Can you describe a house church for us,
10 please.
11 A. I can describe it based on my experiences as involved
12 in -- in North Carolina, prior to being involved with The
13 Urantia Book and the Urantia movement, I attended a church
14 which was a nondenominational church that really, you know,
15 didn't have a paid minister but it had -- they had a group and
16 they called themselves elders, I guess, or I think they did,
17 and we would study the Bible and we would do church kind of
18 things but it wasn't in a church building with an
19 ecclesiastical structure.
20 Q. And that's basically the type of an organization that
21 existed in the Urantian movement in Oklahoma?
22 A. Yes. It's even less formal than that as far as the
23 Urantia meetings and the study groups.
24 Q. And what's your participation been over the years in those
25 house churches and the study groups?
00365 {00:00:00PM}
01 A. I haven't attended a house church probably since I was in
02 college. I attended three or four different house churches at
03 different times. And my -- I have for some -- for many years I
04 was very regular in attending the study group here in Oklahoma,
05 which the one that I attend is on Sunday nights, and then I
06 moved to a farm about five years ago and sort of broke the
07 habit and I'm not that regular anymore, but I still go and
08 enjoy going.
09 Q. Can you briefly tell us what occurs in a study group?
10 A. Yes, I can.
11 Q. Please do.
12 A. It typically is a reading -- at least in the one that I
13 attend -- and most of them that I have ever attended are sort
14 of along this line. There will be a section in The Urantia
15 Book which is read and a part will be read and then there is --
16 first of all, it starts out normally with a prayer to ask God
17 to bless our group and to help us understand what we're going
18 to read. Then the part -- you know, we'll read a part and then
19 when anybody has something to talk about with it, they do. And
20 then after a couple of hours, we -- you know, maybe there's
21 some cookies and everybody goes home.
22 Q. Now, let's talk about the summer conferences, the larger
23 conferences. They were sponsored by the Urantia Foundation or
24 The Brotherhood?
25 A. Well, in recent years, The Urantia Foundation has
00366 {00:00:00PM}
01 sponsored some since the organizations split. As far as I
02 know, prior to the split, The Urantia Foundation never had any
03 conferences of its own. The only conferences were The
04 Brotherhood conferences. So, once The Brotherhood became The
05 Fellowship, we've continued to have ours. So, I've never
06 attended any Urantia Foundation conferences.
07 Q. What happens at these conferences that you've attended
08 sponsored by The Brotherhood and then The Fellowship?
09 A. Well, they're pretty elaborate affairs. On the bigger
10 ones, in the evenings there will be -- they will typically be
11 some entertainment, some singing, there will be kids' program,
12 a singing of spiritual songs, there will be group prayer.
13 Normally, at some time in the mornings, if people want to, they
14 go out and have prayer together before the meeting starts.
15 Then there's a series of talks that are given on particular
16 topics where everybody attends typically in the morning and
17 typically in the afternoon. There are a number of subgroups
18 that break out and there might be, you know, whereas everybody
19 is together in the morning, there might be groups of 20 or 30,
20 and so you'd have maybe 40 or 50 different things going over
21 the course of an afternoon and a person would be able to attend
22 a couple of them. So you'd pick the one that -- the interest
23 that you had and attend that one.
24 Q. And those are generally related to the 196 paper of The
25 Urantia Book?
00367 {00:00:00PM}
01 A. Yes, they are.
02 Q. Have you had a role as a moderator or a leader of any of
03 those programs?
04 A. Yes, I have, on several -- on a number of occasions.
05 Q. How many times?
06 A. Oh, I don't know. I'd say at least half a dozen times of
07 the big conferences, of the summer conferences. Probably more
08 than that.
09 Q. And did that require you to prepare a paper or some
10 presentation with respect to a specific aspect of that book?
11 A. Yes, it did.
12 Q. Essentially, what is that, a research paper or an
13 analytical paper, or what? You describe it for me in your own
14 words.
15 A. Well, it might be on the subject of how prayer works. I
16 remember giving one on that.
17 On different things to do with a relationship between The
18 Urantia Book and Christianity, I've given some talks on that.
19 Another one I gave was how you -- I'm not sure I was the
20 appropriate person to give the talk -- but it was on how the
21 spiritual principles can make a person more successful in their
22 business life. So there have been times when that was
23 appropriate and times when it wasn't, or when I followed my own
24 recipe.
25 Q. Have you, over the years, published works other than Jesus
00368 {00:00:00PM}
01 - A New Revelation that relate to The Urantia Book?
02 A. Yes, I have.
03 Q. First, let me show you what we have marked as exhibit 76.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel?
05 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you have a copy in front of you?
07 A. Yes, I do.
08 Q. And what is that, please, sir?
09 A. This is a book entitled, "Index to The Urantia Book."
10 Q. And that is something that you put together and published?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. When?
13 A. I think it was published about two years -- well, about
14 two years ago.
15 Q. Can you give us a background of how it came to be?
16 A. Well, the problem in The Urantia Book, for serious
17 students, is you can't find what you're looking for. There's
18 no index in the book. And so people would end up having very,
19 very heavily annotated books that say, "If this connects to
20 this, page this, page that."
21 In conjunction with The Fellowship printing of an edition
22 of The Urantia Book -- and we had it up here -- Mr. Keeler --
23 no, pardon me, it was never entered into evidence. Anyway,
24 there was a book that The Fellowship published and our concept
25 was that it needed an index because serious books are supposed
00369 {00:00:00PM}
01 to have indexes. So, there was a man that was producing one
02 and I was in charge of formatting this book to get it together
03 and by the time I got around to looking at the index I didn't
04 think it worked very well, what he had done, so I told him that
05 I thought they shouldn't publish it with that index. And then,
06 you know, the way things work when you're on a committee, if
07 you find a problem with somebody else's work, then you end up
08 being the one that gets to do it.
09 Q. You became a Marine Corps volunteer; right?
10 A. That's exactly right. I should have kept my mouth shut.
11 But, anyway, I became fascinated with the subject. This
12 was about four or five years work to do this. It's an
13 extremely exacting job.
14 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move it be admitted, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Without objection, it will be admitted.
16 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD)
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, can you tell us briefly -- you
18 mentioned it's an index, but can you give us an example of how
19 it works and what you did to put it together?
20 A. Well, it involved, just for the production of this thing,
21 it involved reading through The Urantia Book on a word-by-word
22 basis about three or four times, and then when a particular
23 subject is mentioned, then it goes into -- then I would take
24 that word and put it into a database. And then -- well, in The
25 Urantia Book, a lot of things -- it's very common that the same
00370 {00:00:00PM}
01 thing is referred to by a lot of different names. And the
02 essence of an index is that everything gets under the same
03 topic, so that if you're looking for trees, for example, then
04 you don't have to look under oaks and cedars and, you know, all
05 sorts of things like that. You look under tree and then there
06 are subheadings for what it is.
07 Here, if you're looking for the Apostles, then there's a
08 listing of who all the Apostles are, and it will say, for
09 Matthew, "See Matthew under Apostles." So, it's a way to
10 organize information so that when people are looking for a
11 particular thing, they can find all of it.
12 Q. And using your illustration, if one is looking for
13 "Matthew" and they find it, they will find a page reference for
14 every time "Matthew" is mentioned in the 2000-plus pages of The
15 Urantia Book?
16 A. That's the concept. For any use that has any
17 significance. If it was just -- If it was something that
18 said, "Matthew, James, John and Phillip went over and sat on
19 the rock," you know, it probably wouldn't be in there because
20 it doesn't have any -- it's nothing anybody would ever care
21 for, care about. So, the indexer has to make a judgment on
22 what things have significance, or else -- because if it's too
23 bulky, it's not as usable.
24 Q. Who publishes that work?
25 A. Michael Foundation.
00371 {00:00:00PM}
01 Q. And that's the Michael Foundation that's a party in this
02 lawsuit?
03 A. That's correct.
04 Q. And is that copyrighted?
05 A. Yes, it is.
06 Q. By whom?
07 A. By me.
08 Q. Do you make that available to Urantians?
09 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. It's for sale?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you give away copies?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you give attribution to The Urantia Book in that index?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you -- I hesitate to get involved in that. I think
17 maybe I can do this.
18 Would you please turn to the -- there we go -- to the
19 publisher's preface. Can you see that?
20 Now, you mentioned the concordance and the concordance
21 that Mr. Keeler discussed this morning. How do those differ
22 from your publication?
23 A. A concordance is totally different than an index, although
24 it's a way to achieve -- it's a totally different way of trying
25 to achieve the same thing. In a concordance, you have -- the
00372 {00:00:00PM}
01 concordance only has the exact words that happen to be in the
02 volume. So, if you had a concordance of the Bible for the
03 International Version, it wouldn't work for a King James
04 Version because where it says "you" in one, it's going to say
05 "thou" in the other and it only has those exact words.
06 So, what an index does is make available the access to the
07 information by the subject, whereas the concordance can only
08 take the exact words that are there. So, I mean, another
09 problem is the concordance -- concordances are too long. If
10 you were going to look up the word "Jesus" in something in a
11 concordance, it would be -- you know, it would have every
12 single time the word "Jesus" occurred and you really want to
13 know what he was doing when the 5,000 were fed or something --
14 you know, something that would be a little -- an index
15 condenses things and a concordance, in its nature, cannot. So,
16 on a separate line on these indexes, there might be four or
17 five different references that sort of get to the same topic.
18 Q. Now, the publication Jesus - A New Revelation is up
19 there. I would ask you to get that, please. That's already in
20 evidence. That is the publication that the Michael Foundation
21 has published that is at the heart of this dispute?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And when was that published?
24 A. It was published in 1999, I think around June.
25 Q. And does that volume contain the portion of your
00373 {00:00:00PM}
01 publication index to The Urantia Book that is appropriate for
02 that portion of The Urantia Book?
03 A. Yes, it does.
04 Q. And that is a work that has been copyrighted by you?
05 A. Yes, it has.
06 Q. Tell us about the cover of that book.
07 A. Oh, Jesus - A New Revelation?
08 Q. Yeah.
09 A. This is a painting by Salvador Dali. I don't know if
10 you've ever seen it but it's a pretty famous painting. It's
11 called Jesus of Saint John of the Cross and it shows -- in my
12 opinion, what it's showing here is the resurrected Jesus and
13 he's on -- he's over the Sea of Galilee here, at least that's
14 what people think it is. That's what people think the
15 representation is. There's a boat and a fisherman down there.
16 And the thing that's so striking about it is that Jesus
17 actually isn't attached to the cross. You know, so it just
18 shows his victory over death and his resurrection, and it shows
19 -- you know, it shows a really powerful guy too. It's not a
20 milk toast kind of picture that a lot of the medieval pictures
21 of Jesus were. So that was -- you know, for that reason, I
22 thought it was a good -- an appropriate cover for a book about
23 Jesus.
24 Q. How do you choose that?
25 A. I chose it -- I don't know -- with a lot of effort and
00374 {00:00:00PM}
01 second guessing and everything else. I wanted it to be as good
02 as possible. There were a lot of possibilities and this seemed
03 the best one.
04 Q. Have you received any compliments about that work?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. Give us a magnitude.
07 A. Hundreds.
08 Q. Have you received criticisms?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. From whom?
11 A. Almost entirely people associated with Urantia
12 Foundation. There have been a few that don't like the cover,
13 you know, that aren't fans of Urantia Foundation either. But,
14 by and large, it was from people that didn't -- that thought
15 that Urantia Foundation should be the sole publisher of
16 anything to do with The Urantia Book.
17 Q. When did you first contemplate publishing part IV of The
18 Urantia Book?
19 THE COURT: Counsel, this might be a pretty good
20 place to take an evening recess before we get further into it.
21 9 o'clock in the morning be agreeable?
22 MR. ABOWITZ: I think we have a problem with the
23 courtroom in the morning.
24 THE LAW CLERK: Judge --
25 THE COURT: No, I think no.
00375 {00:00:00PM}
01 THE COURT REPORTER: Judge, that hearing is off.
02 THE COURT: That problem is solved, right.
03 We don't recognize junior judges in this courtroom.
04 We're all right on the courtroom, counsel.
05 You show up and we'll have a place for you to work.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: I was concerned. We were told to move
07 all our gear. So I guess our gear can stay in place?
08 THE COURT: That's rescinded. Leave your gear here.
09 9 o'clock agreeable?
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, sir.
11 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be recessed
12 until 9 o'clock in the morning. Be back in the jury assembly
13 room just prior to that time. I again remind you very
14 specifically about the instructions not to discuss this case.
15 Don't permit anyone to discuss it with you or in your
16 presence. And with that admonition, we'll see you here at
17 9 o'clock in the morning.
18 Everyone stand and remain standing until the jurors have
19 cleared the courtroom.
20 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
21 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
22 THE COURT: Court is in recess.
23 (THE EVENING RECESS WAS TAKEN)
24 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME III)
25
00376 { 9:04:27am}
01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
02 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
03
04 MICHAEL FOUNDATION, INC.,
04
05 Plaintiff,
05
06 vs. CASE NO. CV-00-0885-W
06
07 URANTIA FOUNDATION, et al.,
07
08 Defendants.
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 HAD THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001
13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEE R. WEST, SENIOR JUDGE PRESIDING
13
14 JURY TRIAL - VOLUME III OF VII
15
16
17
18
19 A P P E A R A N C E S
20 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. ROSS A. PLOURDE
20 MR. MURRAY E. ABOWITZ
21 Attorneys at Law
21 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
22
22 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. STEVEN G. HILL
23 MR. PETER SCHOENTHALER
23 MR. ERIC MAURER
24 Attorneys at Law
24 Atlanta, Georgia
25
25
00377 { 9:04:27am}
01 INDEX OF VOLUME III
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES (CONTINUED):
04 HARRY McMULLAN
05 DIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) (Continued) ........... 379
05 CROSS (By Mr. Hill) ........................... 431
06 REDIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) ..................... 518
06 RECROSS (By Mr. Hill) ......................... 528
07 Witness Excused .................................... 530
07
08 PLAINTIFF RESTS ......................................... 532
08
09 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES:
09
10 FRANK GARD JAMESON, JR.
10
11 DIRECT (By Mr. Hill) .......................... 532
11 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 565
12 REDIRECT (By Mr. Hill) ........................ 577
12 RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ...................... 578
13 Witness Excused .................................... 578
13
14 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, IV
14
15 DIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) .................. 580
15 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 594
16 Witness Excused .................................... 601
16
17 **********
18
00378 { 2:52:10pm}
01 MORNING SESSION
02 THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001
03 ---------------------------------------------------------------
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF
05 THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: Be seated. The jury is on its way.
07 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
08 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
09 THE COURT: Be seated, please, ladies and gentlemen
10 of the jury.
11 You may resume the stand, and I'll remind you that you're
12 under the same oath that was previously administered.
13 Before we start -- resume the questioning, let me ask the
14 jury if anything occurred during the recess that would in any
15 way prevent any of you from continuing to serve as a fair and
16 impartial juror in this case?
17 I gather not.
18 You may proceed, Mr. Abowitz.
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONT'D)
20 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
21 Q. Mr. McMullan, when we recessed yesterday, we were talking
22 about the Michael Foundation's publication of Jesus - A New
23 Revelation. I was about to get into and will get into now a
24 discussion of when Michael first contemplated, through you,
25 publishing that work.
00379 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. It was about in 1975. Michael Foundation -- pardon me --
02 1995. Michael Foundation did not exist at the time, but in my
03 mind that is about when I thought about doing it separately.
04 Q. Did you have any people that were also interested in doing
05 it with you?
06 A. Yes, I did.
07 Q. And who were those people?
08 A. The person who was the initiating person, individual, to
09 get it going was a man named Mo Seigel.
10 Q. And Mr. Siegel -- how'd you know Mr. Siegel?
11 A. He had been a close friend of mine for 20 years, at least.
12 Q. And did he have some official role in either The Urantia
13 Foundation or The Urantia Brotherhood or The Urantia
14 Fellowship?
15 A. At the time, he had a relationship -- he was on the board
16 with me in The Urantia Fellowship.
17 Q. And this is 1995?
18 A. Yes, sir, 1994 or 1995.
19 Q. And what was your thought processes about publishing just
20 that portion of The Urantia Book?
21 A. The theory was that this is a way to bring Jesus to
22 people.
23 Q. Why separate it from the rest of the book?
24 A. Well, the entire book has all sorts of other things in it
25 as well, and sometimes when you separate something out and
00380 { 2:52:10pm}
01 focus on it, it has more of an appeal. It's just a wonderful
02 story. It doesn't have as much of the philosophy and some of
03 the other stuff that's in the first three parts, so it has the
04 appeal to people as if they're reading a novel.
05 Q. Did you at that time determine what portion of The Urantia
06 Book would be published in Jesus - A New Revelation, which
07 papers?
08 A. The -- pardon me. I have some hay fever or something this
09 morning.
10 The part IV is the life and teachings of Jesus in The
11 Urantia Book. The only issue was whether to leave in the very
12 first paper of it, which deals with instructions that Jesus got
13 in his preexistent devine life before coming down to earth to
14 incarnate in human form. It seemed to me that that particular
15 chapter was really kind of confusing apart from what you knew
16 earlier about the situation. So I left that one paper out.
17 Q. At that time, were you and Mr. Siegel of the view that
18 The Urantia Book was a unified work, as we've heard?
19 A. Oh, yes.
20 Q. And then how could you come -- how could you account for
21 publishing part of it if you thought it was a unified work?
22 A. Well, I didn't -- my thinking on this thing evolved. At
23 that time, it was only the situation that I knew the power of
24 this thing and so did he because we had both experienced Jesus
25 as a result of going through this book, going through this
00381 { 2:52:10pm}
01 part -- the fourth part of the book, which is now in this book,
02 and so it had had a very deep impact on both of us. And so the
03 problem of how to relate it to the rest of The Urantia Book at
04 that point had not been solved, but it was later.
05 Q. Okay. When was it solved?
06 A. It was solved a couple of -- oh, I guess about a year
07 before this was printed.
08 Q. How was it resolved?
09 A. It was resolved primarily through the index that's been
10 referred to. And so there's some terms in the fourth part of
11 The Urantia Book that -- for example, The Urantia Book says
12 that -- refers to the universe in which we live in as Nebadon.
13 It says that's the same way that earth is Urantia, the part of
14 the universe that we live in is Nebadon, and Jesus had a
15 preexistent -- a preincarnation existence and his name was
16 Michael. And so through part IV in here, there are references
17 in here to Michael did this or Michael did that and they would
18 make no sense if you didn't have the rest of the book. So what
19 I did was in the index, in the back, you can flip to Michael or
20 you can flip to Nebadon and there's just a little -- just
21 enough to let you know what it is and then a reference to the
22 remainder of The Urantia Book so that it can make sense. There
23 were a number of terms that were handled that way.
24 Q. For the benefit of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
25 can you briefly tell us what the reference to Michael is in the
00382 { 2:52:10pm}
01 index of Jesus - A New Revelation?
02 A. Yeah. The reference is Michael of Nebadon and it says --
03 the indexes say, "See also," and that means just other things,
04 "See also Christ, Creator, Sons and Jesus." And then in
05 brackets it has, "Creator son of our local universe who
06 incarnated on earth as Jesus of Nazareth. See Urantia Book
07 papers 21, 119 and 120." And those are three other papers that
08 deal extensively with Jesus in his preincarnated state. And
09 it's really important to know that. The view is that if you
10 have just that much, that's enough to make the part that's in
11 here make sense. And then if a person wants to know more, then
12 they know where to go in The Urantia Book.
13 Q. And in your view, that did not destroy the unified nature
14 of The Urantia Book?
15 A. Not at all.
16 Q. Were there any other people besides you and Mr. Siegel
17 involved in this enterprise at one time?
18 A. There was a third person who offered to finance the bulk
19 of it.
20 Q. And who was that?
21 A. Gard Jameson.
22 Q. If I may --
23 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have -- I think it's exhibit 22.
24 Yeah, that's it.
25 Can you see that? Better?
00383 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Is this the man we're talking about?
02 A. Yes, it is.
03 Q. Now, at the time you and Mr. Siegel and Mr. Jameson were
04 talking about doing this, did you consider The Urantia
05 Foundation copyrighted?
06 A. At the time these discussions were being held, the book
07 was in the public domain.
08 Q. And were -- strike that.
09 Did Mr. Siegel and Mr. Jameson continue to be a part of
10 the venture?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What happened?
13 A. They became trustees of Urantia Foundation.
14 Q. What happened after they became trustees of The Urantia
15 Foundation?
16 A. Well, I thought the project was just as good as it ever
17 was and I continued with it.
18 Q. Did they?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Why?
21 A. Well, I think they thought it was inconsistent with their
22 service as trustees of The Urantia Foundation.
23 Q. In what respect, do you know?
24 A. Well, Urantia Foundation didn't want it done, so if they
25 were going to be on that group, they would pretty well have to
00384 { 2:52:10pm}
01 go along with what the group wants to do.
02 MR. HILL: Your Honor, I object to the speculation.
03 THE COURT: Sustained.
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, prior to publishing the book, did
05 you approach Urantia Foundation with the idea that they would
06 be given some credit in your book for The Urantia Book?
07 A. Yes, I did.
08 Q. And precisely what did you offer?
09 A. Well, the thing that I offered was a method for them --
10 for people that are interested in The Urantia Book as a result
11 of reading this to know where to buy The Urantia Book.
12 Q. So, if they read --
13 A. So I was going to say, "If you want Urantia Books, write
14 Urantia Foundation with your name and address," and whatever
15 else they wanted to put in there, web site address or whatever.
16 Q. So if Jesus - A New Revelation provoked interest in
17 The Urantia Book, people would know where to get it?
18 A. That was the idea.
19 Q. All right. And this is the same Mr. Jameson that was part
20 of the venture who is now a trustee of The Urantia Foundation?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And you wrote this e-mail to him and said essentially,
23 "What's going on?"
24 A. Well, I think I said, "Since I haven't heard from you, I
25 presume you don't want to do it but I wanted to make sure." We
00385 { 2:52:10pm}
01 were getting the book type set, so it was time to move one way
02 or the other.
03 Q. Please read the response here from Gard Jameson.
04 A. "Thanks, my friend. Your presumption is correct. We're
05 making progress but it takes time. Georges is quite
06 conservative. You'd be proud of your brother, Mo. I hope to
07 see you soon. Have a great holiday with family. Our family
08 sends a big hug to you all. Love, Gard."
09 Q. This says, "We're making progress." Did progress ever go
10 beyond that note?
11 A. I would have to read into it what he's referring to, and
12 I'm sure it would be objected to.
13 Q. No, my question was: Did the progress ever get beyond
14 this exchange of communication?
15 MR. HILL: Your Honor, I object.
16 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll let him explain what he
17 understands progress to be.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: I'll ask.
19 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What did you understand by this message?
20 A. What I took it to mean was it would tie into the next
21 sentence, "Georges is quite conservative," that there was a
22 faction in Urantia Foundation that wanted to have a more
23 progressive attitude toward doing things with The Urantia Book.
24 Q. And --
25 A. And he says, "And they're making progress in that regard
00386 { 2:52:10pm}
01 but it takes time." That's how I interpreted it.
02 Q. Georges is a French gentleman --
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. -- that we heard about yesterday?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. Well, did anything happen beyond this exchange?
07 A. Well, I got sued.
08 Q. Other than that?
09 A. No. Well, I'm not sure what you mean.
10 Q. All right. But there was never any more communication
11 about your offer to give them attribution in Jesus - A New
12 Revelation; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Now, you were in the courtroom yesterday and I asked
15 Mr. Keeler why The Foundation wasn't interested in cooperating
16 with you in getting the attribution that you talked about and
17 he gave us an example of a rustler. Were you here in the
18 courtroom when that occurred?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. How do you relate -- What is your view of what occurred
21 with the publication of Jesus - A New Revelation? In that
22 example, were you a rustler?
23 A. No.
24 Q. How do you characterize it?
25 A. Well, I was thinking -- I woke up in the middle of the
00387 { 2:52:10pm}
01 night thinking about it and I thought that where he thought
02 there were cattle, there were deer, and where he thought it was
03 his ranch, it was a state park, and he posted the state park so
04 that none of the rest of us can go on it without his
05 permission.
06 Q. So, is it your view that you're talking about land rather
07 than what's on the land?
08 A. Well, you know, his analogy is fine if there's a right to
09 do what he claims to do. If he has -- If he has a legal right
10 to restrict anybody from doing anything with it, then he's
11 right. But if it's in the public domain, which we believe it
12 is, then he can use it but so can everybody else.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I don't want any of his cattle. I just want -- never
15 mind. That's all.
16 Q. Well, finish your thought.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Were you trying to set him up with this, that if he took
19 this attribution, if The Foundation took the attribution, then
20 you could say you've waived any right to police this?
21 A. Not at all. I would have been very pleased for them to
22 say, "We don't agree with this," or whatever. Or they could
23 have -- one thing I suggested to him was that, you know, "Look,
24 we can work it out somewhere where it doesn't look like you
25 have agreed to even have it in there, that I'm just saying
00388 { 2:52:10pm}
01 it." But I don't want to say it, I don't want to say The
02 Urantia Foundation is even -- that you can put them in there in
03 a way that might imply that Michael Foundation was the same as
04 Urantia Foundation because that looked like it was a road to
05 trouble, so I wanted their permission to do it, if they wanted
06 it in there.
07 Q. And that never occurred?
08 A. No.
09 Q. Okay. Now, have you -- well, let me see. The board of
10 trustees is composed of a number of people that include
11 Mr. Keeler, who was a friend of yours?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Siegel, who was a friend of yours?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Jameson, who was a friend of yours?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And this situation has come between friends; is that
18 right?
19 A. Yes, it has.
20 Q. Now, have you published any other works involving The
21 Urantia Book?
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: If I may, Judge?
24 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me show you exhibit 77. Would you
25 identify that?
00389 { 2:52:10pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: I think that that may be admitted. May
02 it?
03 MR. HILL: Yeah, we don't have any objection to it.
04 THE COURT: It will be admitted.
05 A. This is a booklet entitled When Things Go Wrong.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And can you explain to the Court and the
07 ladies and gentlemen of the jury what it is?
08 A. Yes, I can. It's a book that I wrote at a time when I was
09 having some personal marriage difficulties, actually, and I was
10 feeling pretty low. So I was looking through The Urantia Book
11 to try to find things to, you know, spiritually restabilize
12 myself. And in the course of doing it, I thought, "You know, a
13 lot of people have these problems." So I tried to think of it
14 in terms of the areas that people really have problems. One
15 area was when you're feeling lonely or isolated. Another one
16 is when you're in doubt or confusion. Another one is when
17 you're feeling guilty. And another one is when you're sick or
18 having hardship. Another is when you're feeling discouraged or
19 defeated. And so on. Anyway, there were seven of these
20 things. So then I wrote an introduction to each of those and
21 then followed it up with, oh, maybe 10 or 15 selections from
22 The Urantia Book in each category that I thought would uplift
23 people.
24 Q. Who published that?
25 A. This was published by Michael Foundation.
00390 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And when was it published?
02 A. This particular edition was published in 1997, but I think
03 the first edition of it was published around 1989 or '90,
04 somewhere in there.
05 Q. Did you have discussions with The Urantia Foundation about
06 the publication by Michael Foundation of that pamphlet?
07 A. It's hard to tell. My recollection is that I wrote them a
08 letter asking for copyright permission when I did it, but
09 nothing ever happened beyond that point. Either they didn't
10 respond to me or I lost the letter or -- I don't know. I'm not
11 sure what happened from that point.
12 Q. Is that book still being published by Michael?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. How many copies of that book have been distributed?
15 A. Oh, I'm not sure. 5- or 6,000, probably. Maybe 10,000 at
16 the most.
17 Q. Have you received comments about that book?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Favorable, unfavorable?
20 A. I don't think I've ever received an unfavorable comment
21 about it. They either keep their opinions to themselves or --
22 you know, I don't know. But a lot of people seem to like it.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness again,
24 Judge?
25 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me show you what's been marked as
00391 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Defendant's Exhibit 38.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, I guess it may be admitted
03 since it's on your list?
04 MR. HILL: No objection.
05 THE COURT: Be admitted.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you tell us what that is, please,
07 sir.
08 A. This is a booklet called 21 Steps To A Spiritual
09 Awakening.
10 Q. And can you tell us when that was published?
11 A. I'm not sure when this particular -- This edition was
12 published in 1996 but it goes back probably 10 years before
13 that.
14 Q. And what was the impetus of your publishing that?
15 A. The emphasis is the same thing: this is a way to help
16 people find God. So there are different categories. It's not
17 that dissimilar in the structure to the other one. It starts
18 off recognizing our needs, believing in God, accepting God's
19 grace. It was based on the Alcoholics Anonymous 12 steps, but
20 it was expanded to be some other things. For example, the
21 12-step program doesn't have anything about Jesus in there. So
22 there are a few other things that I added but it was sort of
23 along those lines. And then there's an introduction and then
24 some parts from The Urantia Book from different places that
25 were quoted that pertain to that subject.
00392 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. How many copies of that have been distributed?
02 A. A few less than the other, probably. I don't know.
03 5,000. Somewhere in there.
04 Q. And it's still being distributed?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. You've received comment from people that have read it?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. Favorable, unfavorable?
09 A. I've never heard an unfavorable comment. I've had lots of
10 favorable comments on it.
11 Q. Are there any other publications that stem from your
12 Urantia affairs in which you have either written, published, or
13 helped the project along that involves a writing?
14 A. Yes, I did -- I did a writing called The Keyword Index
15 around 1988 and '89.
16 Q. Is that different from the index that you have in front of
17 you?
18 A. It's totally different.
19 Q. In what way?
20 A. It was very primitive compared to this but it takes the
21 table of contents out of The Urantia Book and it -- I had just
22 gotten a computer and I had a little word processing sort of
23 thing there and I took the key words and arranged it so that
24 there could be some alphabetical way to find the big subjects,
25 at least the ones that are listed in the table of contents.
00393 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And who publishes that?
02 A. Urantia Foundation.
03 Q. And did they give you any attribution on it?
04 A. No.
05 Q. It's being published today?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Does it still have a market, given your new better edition
08 index?
09 A. I don't know why it would but -- I don't know.
10 Q. We've referred to Michael Foundation. Can you tell us
11 what it is?
12 A. It is a nonprofit foundation that was founded, I believe,
13 in the fall of 1995.
14 Q. For what purpose?
15 A. It was to be the vehicle for a Urantia church here in
16 Oklahoma City was the original vehicle.
17 Q. And was the Urantia church to be called some version of
18 Michael?
19 A. It was going to be called the Church of Christ Michael.
20 Q. Why did you establish a foundation to do that?
21 A. Well, if you're going to do anything that requires a bunch
22 of money, there needs to be some method of deducting the
23 contributions for the contributors for their taxes, or else it
24 costs them twice as much.
25 Q. So, thus the vehicle for The Foundation?
00394 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. That's right. That was the original vehicle.
02 Q. Did the church ever get off the ground?
03 A. Well, it was off the ground but it never -- in the sense
04 of physically it was off the ground but it never got off the
05 grounds in terms of an organizational church.
06 Q. When did this occur, this effort to build a church in
07 Oklahoma?
08 A. I hope I'm not mixing the years up but I think it was
09 1990- -- it was either -- it was formed either in the fall of
10 '95 or '96 and then it -- the minister came in a few months
11 later once we got his visa -- he's an Australian guy -- and he
12 was here for about -- it didn't really last that long for that
13 part. Maybe for four or five months.
14 Q. Can you tell us briefly what was involved in starting the
15 church?
16 A. Well, the main thing in starting the church is to get a
17 good pastor, a good minister. I found this man that I thought
18 was a very dynamic speaker and a deeply committed Urantia
19 believer and I thought he had -- I thought he had
20 organizational skills and I thought he would -- it would really
21 work out great.
22 Q. You say he was an Australian. Where did you find him?
23 A. I met him at a Urantia conference.
24 Q. And he secured a visa to come to the United States?
25 A. I secured the visa for him to come to the United States.
00395 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. As a pastor of a church?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And --
04 A. As a religious worker, I think, was the actual legal
05 heading.
06 Q. And what happened to him and the church?
07 A. Well, the local Urantia community just didn't take to this
08 guy, and so it ended up -- you know, there was a mutual
09 distaste between most of the people here in the local community
10 toward -- his name is -- the man's name is Robert Crickett --
11 toward Rob Crickett, and you can't have a church without a
12 congregation. So we had been fixing up this lovely building to
13 be our church. And then once, you know, once the -- I mean, a
14 building is just an empty old piece of nothing if you don't
15 have a vibrant congregation and a minister in there that can
16 inspire the people. And so that was the end of that effort to
17 create a Urantia church.
18 Q. Has there been another one?
19 A. Well, several people have done this in the country but
20 that's the only one that I've ever done.
21 Q. Is there another one on the horizon for Oklahoma?
22 A. I think I've done about all the church building I need to
23 do myself. I think it would be wonderful if it were but I
24 don't -- I think I've already -- it's amazing how difficult it
25 is to get a church going. I don't know if anybody has --
00396 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. What other matters is Michael Foundation involved in other
02 than publication of books and this attempt to start a church in
03 Oklahoma?
04 A. I think that's about it.
05 Q. Are there other foundations that have been organized to be
06 involved in the works of Urantia?
07 A. Yes, there are a number of different organizations.
08 Q. In which you're involved?
09 A. There's one other one in which I'm involved.
10 Q. And that is?
11 A. Asoka Foundation.
12 Q. And what is The Asoka Foundation?
13 A. Asoka Foundation prints -- well, Asoka Foundation
14 originally printed this.
15 Q. When you refer to "this," what are you referring to?
16 A. 21 Steps To A Spiritual Awakening.
17 And it exists -- the original -- the original motive for
18 The Asoka Foundation was to give people who wanted to
19 contribute to Urantia causes a way to deduct their
20 contributions. So we filed -- this is back almost 20 years ago
21 -- we filed for a 501-C3 designation, which is a nonprofit
22 designation, and we registered under the broad range of things
23 that always had to be Urantia Book spiritual religious
24 activities. So, when people would want to do a particular
25 project, then we would allow them to give the money -- to send
00397 { 2:52:10pm}
01 their money to Asoka Foundation and then we, provided it fell
02 within the range of what we thought was legitimate under our
03 charter, then we would fund those things that they wanted to
04 do. The net effect was it enabled them to do it and get a tax
05 deduction.
06 Q. Now, there was a discussion yesterday about a conflict
07 that occurred in 1989 between The Foundation and The
08 Brotherhood. Can you briefly relate to us what that was?
09 A. It's one of these things that it's hard to know where to
10 start, but I've been involved in The Urantia Fellowship since
11 -- on the board since 1979. So the split you're talking about
12 occurred 10 years later and it was -- it's hard to say exactly
13 where it started but The Urantia Brotherhood was supposed to be
14 selling the books and getting -- sort of getting the word out
15 and it just became progressively more difficult to do so.
16 There was one -- the president of the board of trustees at the
17 time on Urantia Foundation was very, very difficult to get
18 along with.
19 Q. Is that Mr. Myers?
20 A. Yes. I doubt if our friends at the other table would
21 object to that. I mean, they would probably agree to that too.
22 At one point, three of their five trustees resigned
23 en masse back in 1989 because they couldn't take it either. So
24 then at the same time everybody found it impossible to deal
25 with the guy. His response was to tell The Brotherhood, "You
00398 { 2:52:10pm}
01 can't use the word 'Urantia' any more, and you can't stay here
02 in the building any more, and you aren't going to be the
03 distribution vehicle for The Urantia Book any more."
04 Q. Why did the -- Why did the organization find it more
05 difficult to deal with the books under Mr. Myers' leadership of
06 The Foundation? You indicated, "It became more difficult for
07 us to do our job."
08 A. Well, there were any number of problems but maybe the
09 principal problem had to do with the distribution policy
10 because we were interested in doing many of the same things
11 that actually Urantia Foundation is doing now, which is to sell
12 through wholesalers. If you want wholesalers to carry your --
13 expect them to carry it, you have to give them a discount that
14 enables them to do it, or else they can't -- they're not going
15 to carry a book just for free. So we wanted the wholesalers --
16 we thought, to get this book out in commercial -- into book
17 stores, books are sold through -- book stores buy books through
18 chains -- I'm sorry -- through distributors. It's a little
19 less true now when you have these mega stores like Barnes &
20 Noble and Borders. They probably make their own arrangements.
21 At the time it was more like what Walden Books And B. Dalton
22 and the smaller stores. You know, they were chains but the
23 smaller book stores like Bollinger's around here, and they
24 bought through distributors. And so if the books weren't going
25 to be sold through distributors, there was no practical way for
00399 { 2:52:10pm}
01 the book -- to expect the book stores to write to one publisher
02 to get one book out of all the thousands and thousands that
03 they carry. It's not efficient for them and they just wouldn't
04 do it. So that was one of the major things.
05 Another thing had to do with the design of the dust jacket
06 that we thought was horrible and cult looking and, in fact,
07 Urantia Foundation has made it much nicer now. They've really
08 done most of the things that we thought needed to be done since
09 as far as making the book more attractive.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: May I borrow that?
11 MR. HILL: Please.
12 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you tell us what you mean by a dust
13 jacket?
14 A. Well, they haven't changed this one. I was referring to
15 this one right here. This is not -- This is not greatly
16 dissimilar from what they did back in 1989. We thought this
17 looked cultish and just not -- anyway, it was our opinion. But
18 the problem is we didn't have any ability to communicate. You
19 know, when we would make suggestions, it would come back -- he
20 said, "Mind your own business," and he actually said, "If you
21 make any more suggestions to us about how to do this, we're
22 going to quit having you as our sales agent."
23 Q. And that occurred?
24 A. Excuse me?
25 Q. And that occurred?
00400 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Well, it didn't occur over that. It occurred when the
02 Brotherhood finally said -- wrote a letter to Urantia
03 Foundation and said, "You've got to do something about this
04 Martin Myers guy because everything is falling apart."
05 Q. And how long --
06 A. And the response to that was the eviction.
07 Q. How long had that relationship existed up until the time
08 The Brotherhood was evicted?
09 A. Since the foundation of The Brotherhood in 1955.
10 Q. Yesterday, just to put this in context, The Brotherhood
11 was essentially the successor to The Forum?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And The Foundation was the successor to The Contact
14 Commission?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. What was the reaction of The Brotherhood to this division?
17 A. It was very difficult.
18 Q. In what sense?
19 A. Well, there had been a unified movement up to that point
20 and people, you know, then it became an us-against-them, which
21 it has been that way to this day. It's very sad.
22 Q. Back when that occurred, was Mr. Keeler part of The
23 Brotherhood?
24 A. Yes, he was.
25 Q. Was Mr. Siegel part of The Brotherhood?
00401 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. Was Mr. Jameson part of The Brotherhood?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. And the three of them moved from The Brotherhood over to
05 The Foundation?
06 A. Not at that time. Mr. Keeler joined -- was invited to be
07 a trustee of The Foundation and Mr. Siegel and Mr. Jameson
08 remained members associated with The Brotherhood for another
09 six or seven or eight years.
10 Q. Now, there was mentioned yesterday of a -- what was
11 apparently a violation by The Brotherhood or The Fellowship, I
12 don't remember which organization was in place at the time,
13 about a telephone number that was used which was
14 1-800-Urantia. Can you relate to us what that dispute was
15 about?
16 A. Yes, I can, because I was involved in the settlement
17 negotiations on it. There was an American Book Sellers
18 Association meeting and we had a table out there.
19 Q. Who is "we"?
20 A. The Fellowship.
21 Q. Now, The Brotherhood, after being evicted and no longer
22 able to use the name Urantia became The Fellowship?
23 A. Yes. Mr. Keeler said it quite right, that it's hard to
24 know what you call it these days. It was The Epochal
25 Fellowship at one time, and it became The Fellowship of Urantia
00402 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Book Readers, and now it's The Urantia Book Fellowship. So
02 we've had a hard time figuring out what to call ourselves.
03 Q. Essentially --
04 A. But it's the same organization.
05 Q. All right. Please continue.
06 A. So we had a Urantia table at the American Book Sellers
07 Convention and a lady named Paula Thompson, who was a member of
08 The Fellowship but also Mo Seigel is the head of an
09 organization -- a nonprofit organization owned by Mo Seigel,
10 who's now the trustee, had some -- there was some flyers on the
11 table and it said something about The Fellowship and then it
12 had the 1- -- maybe it was 888-Urantia, some toll-free number
13 that had the word Urantia in it, to call us there. And a
14 Foundation representative happened to be there and called and
15 about -- it was within 45 minutes there was a complaint about
16 it and it was removed and The Fellowship apologized and said,
17 you know, "Sorry we did that. We didn't realize it was a
18 problem." That ended up that even though it was just on one
19 flyer for 45 minutes on the table, we took it off and we
20 removed it, they filed suit against us in federal court for
21 trademark infringement.
22 Q. Was it resolved?
23 A. It was resolved. The --
24 Q. How?
25 A. Well, the judge is a man named Harry Leinenweber from
00403 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Chicago and he called everybody into the chambers and he said,
02 "Now, what is this Urantia thing?" And then so we said, "Well,
03 Judge, it's the name of the plaintiff." And we flipped to the
04 first page. He says, "Urantia is the name of your planet."
05 It's in the very first line of the introduction. And then he
06 looked at the other people and said --
07 MR. HILL: Your Honor, hearsay.
08 THE WITNESS: I was there.
09 THE COURT: I'll let him recite what happened leading
10 up to -- it did result in a resolution of the dispute and I
11 think they can -- he can discuss what actually occurred.
12 Go ahead.
13 MR. HILL: Okay.
14 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Please continue.
15 A. Well, then the judge said, "This is some religious schism,
16 isn't it?" And so --
17 Q. Go ahead.
18 A. So we were going like this and The Urantia Foundation was
19 going like this (INDICATING), and the judge said -- basically
20 said, "You guys get out of my courtroom. This thing's over."
21 And the suit was dismissed. That's the basic story. He was
22 offended that the suit had been brought.
23 Q. Now, in the course of the dealings with The Foundation on
24 Jesus - A New Revelation, you indicated when you and Mr. Siegel
25 and Mr. Jameson were discussing the first publication, that it
00404 { 2:52:10pm}
01 was in the public domain. Why did you view it to be in the
02 public domain?
03 A. It was in the public domain legally due to a decision in
04 the district court in which the judge declared it in the public
05 domain.
06 Q. And that decision was subsequently reversed?
07 A. Yes, it was.
08 Q. And what was the status of that case when you published
09 Jesus - A New Revelation?
10 A. The reversal had already taken place.
11 Q. And what was your view about publishing it at that point?
12 A. Well, I analyzed the decision as best I could, had my
13 lawyers look at it, and I'm not going to get into that or I
14 don't want to waive the attorney/client privilege on that, but
15 the result was that we believed that it was perfectly legal,
16 even under the appeals court ruling, to publish this book.
17 Q. Now, after you published the book, what was the reaction
18 of The Foundation?
19 A. There were -- They were very unhappy.
20 Q. And, again, what is the date of the publication of the
21 book?
22 A. 1999. Around June, 1999.
23 Q. Did The Foundation correspond with you?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have Defendant's Exhibit 26,
00405 { 2:52:10pm}
01 please.
02 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One second, please. It will take
03 just a minute to warm up the projector, sir.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you see that? Can you blow that
05 up?
06 Judge, can that be admitted?
07 MR. HILL: No objection.
08 THE COURT: Be admitted.
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you see it? There's a screen behind
10 you, Mr. McMullan.
11 A. I think I can see it better on that screen.
12 Q. Is this a letter you received from The Foundation?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. What was your reaction to the letter?
15 A. It may have been a reaction to a different letter but we
16 sent them a letter saying, "Tell us what you did -- identify
17 the parts of the book in which The Urantia Foundation claims to
18 have had some work or some input and we'll take it out."
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. "We'll take that part out."
21 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you scroll it up, please?
22 A. It was a bit of a facetious request because we had
23 evidence from -- there was evidence on the record that they
24 said they hadn't made any changes at all, they hadn't done
25 anything. So when we said, "Tell us the changes you've made,"
00406 { 2:52:10pm}
01 we thought it was an unanswerable question and it kind of made
02 the point of, "What is it you're claiming the copyright on?"
03 Q. All right. Now, did you anticipate this letter?
04 A. You know, not -- well, I anticipated letters. I really
05 didn't anticipate a lawsuit. I anticipated lots of letters
06 like that.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Scroll the letter up, please.
08 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I direct your attention to the sentence,
09 "We know from Eve's folly that one's own personal plans for
10 improving mankind can miscarry and retard, instead of
11 stimulate, growth."
12 What was your reaction to that statement?
13 A. I really didn't react to it at all because it's the kind
14 of thing that I expected them to say. Did you mean what do I
15 think it meant?
16 Q. Well, what did it mean to you?
17 A. Well, Eve is the wife of Adam and the idea is that Eve
18 goes off and gets everybody in trouble. The analogy they're
19 saying is that I'm operating outside of the authorized way to
20 do things and they are the people that are legitimately in
21 charge of what happens with this book and the plan, and so I
22 just don't accept the premise.
23 Q. In that analogy, did you consider yourself to be Eve?
24 A. They considered myself to be Eve.
25 Q. No. Did you consider --
00407 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. No, heavens no.
02 Q. Okay. Thank you.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness?
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me show you exhibit 92 and ask you
05 if you can identify that.
06 A. Yes, I can.
07 Q. What is that?
08 A. This is the response letter that we wrote on November 5th,
09 1999 to Urantia Foundation.
10 Q. And its date?
11 A. November 5th, 1999.
12 Q. And addressed to The Urantia Foundation?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Written by your lawyers?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Shown -- Michael Foundation is shown as a copied
17 recipient?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd move for its admittance, Your
20 Honor.
21 MR. HILL: No objection.
22 THE COURT: Be admitted.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 92, please?
24 Can you enhance that somehow? It's not a very good copy.
25 Can you see that?
00408 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Is it possible to darken that up a little?
02 Is that easier to read that way?
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This letter is signed by whom?
04 A. By that man right there, Ross Plourde.
05 Q. This man? Okay.
06 Briefly, what does the letter ask of The Foundation?
07 A. Well, it's over on page 3.
08 Q. All right.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: May we have page 3, please?
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And what portion of the exhibit are you
11 referring to?
12 A. The paragraph beginning, "In printing Jesus - A New
13 Revelation."
14 Q. So what is the response to my question? Essentially, what
15 did you ask of The Foundation?
16 A. Well, there's a rule that says when you summarize
17 something, it ends up taking twice as long as if you just read
18 it.
19 Q. Only if the lawyer does it.
20 A. Well, we said that Urantia Foundation had said in court
21 that there wasn't any human input and, so, if they haven't
22 claimed a copyright, they have to have done something
23 themselves. Somebody connected with them has to have done
24 something. And if they've said there isn't anything that
25 they've done, then there's no problem with copying it because
00409 { 2:52:10pm}
01 that part of it would not be subject to a copyright.
02 So, especially with the part IV, as Mr. Keeler testified
03 before, it came at one time, and so it's a single -- in the
04 context of that Ninth Circuit court, we viewed it as a single
05 revelation because it came as a unit. So, if they're saying
06 they did something to it, tell us -- we said, "Tell us what you
07 did and we'll take that part out."
08 Q. Did you get a response or did Mr. Plourde get a response?
09 A. No.
10 Q. That was the end of it?
11 A. Well, there was nothing they could say really, but they
12 didn't respond one way or the other. We posed an unanswerable
13 question to them, I think.
14 Q. Why was it unanswerable?
15 A. Because their own admission is that they didn't do
16 anything in here, neither Urantia Foundation nor its
17 predecessors did anything as far as the copyrightable text in
18 The Urantia Book. And that's what -- our understanding is that
19 it's the text itself is what you copyright and not who gave
20 input here or there, but it's who actually did the text
21 itself. So, since they didn't do it, there's nothing to
22 copyright.
23 Q. All right.
24 A. That was my thinking and that was the intent of that
25 letter.
00410 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Thank you.
02 What happened next in this dispute regarding the
03 publication of Jesus - A New Revelation?
04 A. The next big event that happened was Urantia Foundation
05 filed suit against Michael Foundation in Arizona.
06 Q. And what was the nature of the lawsuit?
07 A. Copyright infringement.
08 Q. Did they ask for damages?
09 A. Yes, they did.
10 Q. What did they ask for?
11 A. They asked for damages of $100,000 per copy that were
12 sold.
13 Q. Of -- sold --
14 A. Of this book.
15 Q. And how many were sold?
16 A. 2,600.
17 Q. And that would amount to how much money?
18 A. It's about $260 million.
19 Q. Does Michael Foundation have that kind of money?
20 A. Not in its checkbook. No, it doesn't have that kind of
21 money.
22 Q. The lawsuit was dismissed?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what happened next in the dispute?
25 A. Well, it was clear to me that there was going to be a
00411 { 2:52:10pm}
01 lawsuit somewhere, and so I thought if we're going to fight, it
02 would be much more convenient for me to do it here rather than
03 to have them to shop for some forum somewhere else that had no
04 connection with anything, and so we filed the suit here.
05 Q. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michael Foundation?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Against Urantia Foundation?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Asking for what?
10 A. Asking that the copyright in The Urantia Book be declared
11 invalid.
12 Q. Now, there was a -- you mentioned earlier that -- strike
13 that. Let me address it this way.
14 At the time that Michael Foundation filed its lawsuit
15 against Urantia Foundation in this courthouse, what was your
16 personal view of the origin of The Urantia Book?
17 A. It was very similar to the view expressed by Mr. Keeler,
18 in that these papers just appeared places, just appeared out of
19 thin air.
20 Q. And there was --
21 A. Or at least a lot of them did. Excuse me.
22 Q. There was testimony yesterday and there were letters
23 written to those inquiring essentially that, "We're not going
24 to tell you what the origin is but if you read the book you
25 will find out what you should know about the origin." What
00412 { 2:52:10pm}
01 does the book say about the origin?
02 A. The book talks about a human subject through whom
03 transmissions were given, and it says that he was unconcerned,
04 and that's about it. There's not really anything -- it talks
05 about the thought adjuster -- that's another thing we had in
06 the index here -- the thought adjuster, which is the indwelling
07 spirit of God in a person, having been somehow involved, and
08 that's about it. You could say it in a minute, all that's in
09 The Urantia Book itself.
10 Q. Is it in one particular place or do you have to go to
11 different places in the book to gather that information?
12 A. It's in a couple of different places.
13 Q. And did you ever change your view --
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. -- in that regard?
16 And what is your view now?
17 A. It's very clear that this book was written, start to
18 finish, by a patient of Dr. Sadler.
19 Q. And what gave rise to the change in your view?
20 A. Discovery in this case.
21 Q. And what is it that supports your view that you now have
22 about the origin of this book?
23 A. Well, the thing that really made me start to realize that
24 I was wrong was we had a deposition in January of a man who
25 lived in Honolulu whom I had personally relied on, and his
00413 { 2:52:10pm}
01 story was that part IV was found typed on a desk in some office
02 and they just found it. And that was one of the things that I
03 was relying on in terms of -- I had heard that story for years
04 -- and that was one of the things I was relying on as far as
05 the legal basis for this part of The Urantia Book to not be
06 subject to copyright.
07 And, so, at that deposition, Mr. Hill was kind enough to
08 introduce something I had never seen before. It was an
09 affidavit by one of The Urantia Foundation trustees, Edith
10 Cook, and what it said is that the entire Urantia Book first
11 occurred in the handwriting of -- in the handwriting of an
12 individual. I'm not sure if she said the patient or not. I
13 think she didn't say that.
14 Q. And that was new information to you?
15 A. I had never seen that before.
16 Q. And how did that fit into your thought process that the
17 book had a different origin?
18 A. Well, first of all, I had to -- I had to really think
19 about this handwriting thing. I know to the jury this may
20 sound like it's just weird but it certainly mattered to me, and
21 not just because of this lawsuit, but because this is the
22 religion I've been following all these years.
23 About that time, we got some -- somewhere around in there,
24 we got some copies of The Urantia Foundation pleadings in the
25 Robert Burton case and they said in there, The Urantia
00414 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Foundation said the patient is the author, not just the writer
02 but is the author.
03 At the time this was going on, Emma Christensen, who
04 should have been in a position to know, was cited as being the
05 source of the information. One of the things that Mr. Burton
06 said is, "What do you base your opinion on?" and they said, "On
07 Emma Christensen." So, you have Emma Christensen saying that
08 it's --
09 Q. Tell us again. It's been a couple of days since we found
10 out who she was. Who is she?
11 A. Emma Christensen was Mr. Sadler's foster daughter and she
12 was one of the original members of The Contact Commission.
13 She's the one that typed the handwritten pages onto -- into
14 typed form before they were destroyed.
15 Q. All right. I'm sorry for interrupting. Please continue.
16 A. Well, so you have Edith Cook who knew Dr. Sadler and who
17 had been around since the late '20s, who wasn't a member of The
18 Contact Commission but she was one of the original members of
19 The Urantia Foundation, saying that it was all in the patient's
20 handwriting. Then you have these responses in Burton that say,
21 "It's all in the patient's handwriting. For copyright
22 purposes, he is the author."
23 So you have that on the one hand and then the other thing
24 is the information about, okay, so it's established that he
25 wrote it but then the question is: Was he the author? And the
00415 { 2:52:10pm}
01 distinction would be that you could say a fax machine is not
02 the author of what's printed out over it. You know, it's just
03 a machine and it just does whatever it's told to do.
04 And, so, that, in terms of writing, that's called
05 automatic writing. That's my understanding of it, anyway. And
06 Dr. Sadler wrote in one of his papers, and in fact it was up on
07 the screen yesterday, you know, the paper Urantia Foundation
08 was quoting. It said, "This is not the product of automatic
09 writing," and then it said a lot of other things, that it's not
10 any psychic deal, it's not automatic speaking, it's not this or
11 that. And, so, if -- they also said they never saw the patient
12 write it. And, so, if you take those three things together, he
13 did write it. He wrote every single word. No dispute on that
14 whatsoever. No changes, no nothing, no rearrangement. It's
15 all -- you know, it's this guy's writing.
16 Secondly, nobody saw him write it, so they weren't there
17 to see -- that also means they didn't see him not write it, in
18 my opinion.
19 And, third, it's not automatic writing. In other words,
20 if it's not automatic writing, that means that his mind was at
21 least to some extent engaged in the process. It came out of
22 this man's mind. And, so, the distinction -- this is sort of a
23 theological distinction -- it's between inspiration and pure
24 revelation. And, so, from what these people said who were
25 really the only ones on the scene to have a legitimate opinion
00416 { 2:52:10pm}
01 on it, what it is, to my shock, is that it's a book and it was
02 written like -- it's written like books are written. The man
03 had some amazing, in my opinion, some amazing inspiration but
04 it was -- but the author was this patient and there's no
05 escaping that, in my opinion.
06 Q. Is that a conflict with respect to your beliefs that have
07 come from The Urantia Book?
08 A. Not at all, any more than someone who believes that the
09 Bible is the word of God doesn't have a problem believing that
10 Matthew wrote the gospel according to Matthew. You know, it
11 was Matthew's experience in writing it. It reflected -- I
12 mean, if it were today, I think Matthew could have claimed a
13 copyright and nobody would have said anything about it. So he
14 was inspired -- Matthew was inspired and the patient was
15 inspired. It's inspiration but there's the person -- it's not
16 all this spooky stuff. It's just that somebody was really
17 inspired and they wrote a book, and that doesn't bother me at
18 all.
19 Q. Does that diminish your view of the teachings of that
20 book?
21 A. Not one iota.
22 Q. Well, if it's not -- I think we've heard that it was the
23 product of celestial beings that had planned this book from the
24 middle ages and now you find out it's a man. That hasn't
25 affected your faith?
00417 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Well, the part about it being planned from the middle
02 ages, I think, is ridiculous, personally. I don't -- I don't
03 buy into these myths any more. I mean, I think there was the
04 whole myth structure that was built around it. There's no
05 evidence for that, none whatsoever. And, so, I think this is
06 just part of a story that's been developed and I think it's
07 better to go with a simpler explanation.
08 Q. Well, has that in any way affected your faith in what's
09 written?
10 A. No, not at all. Well, my faith is in God. See, that's
11 the first thing. All this is is specks of carbon on paper.
12 And what this book teaches and what Christianity teaches is you
13 put your faith in God. That's where your faith belongs. So,
14 all these other things are really on a secondary level. So, if
15 something builds my faith in God, then I think it's good. And
16 if it doesn't, I better quit messing with it.
17 Q. Do the teachings of that book still build your faith in
18 God?
19 A. Very much.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Do we have time for a recess, Judge?
21 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll
22 be recessed for 15 minutes. Be back in the jury box at the end
23 of that time, and I'll remind you of my previous admonition not
24 to discuss this case.
25 Everyone please stand.
00418 { 2:52:10pm}
01 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
02 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
03 THE COURT: Court is in recess.
04 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
05 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
06 THE JURY:)
07 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
08 Mr. Abowitz, go ahead.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
10 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. McMullan, we talked the other day
11 about the painting on the cover of Jesus - A New Revelation and
12 you indicated that that is hanging in a museum in Scotland?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you just decide to put that on the cover of your book
15 without permission of those people?
16 A. Oh, no, no. Huh-uh. No, we first decided we wanted this
17 on the cover and then the issue was to find out who owned it,
18 who had the right to it, and we figured out eventually that it
19 was this museum and we wrote them and paid a fee for the right
20 to use this on the cover.
21 Q. Did you deal with anybody else in conjunction with the
22 publication of that book in which you paid for a right to use
23 something that they had?
24 A. Well, I didn't charge Michael Foundation for the use of
25 the index, so there was no money payment involved there.
00419 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Now, did you -- Have you, over the years, where you
02 thought there was a valid interest in something, asked for
03 permission to use it?
04 A. I believe so.
05 Q. Now, there are other issues in this lawsuit concerning the
06 trademark. There's been testimony that you and Michael
07 Foundation have registered domain names that involve words that
08 might cause confusion with The Urantia Foundation and The
09 Urantia Book. Would you tell us what the domain names in
10 question are.
11 A. One of them is -- it's possible I'm going to mix this up a
12 little but I think it's correct -- TheUrantiaBook.com,
13 UrantiaBook.org, and Urantian.org.
14 Q. And when were they registered, all at one time or over a
15 period of time?
16 A. No, they were all registered pretty close to the same
17 time, I think. I don't remember exactly.
18 Q. I'm sorry?
19 A. I don't remember exactly but they were pretty close to the
20 same time.
21 Q. And why were they registered?
22 A. They were registered because at the time it was perfectly
23 clear that if someone is going to have a Urantia ministry, at
24 some point you're going to need to have an Internet presence.
25 Q. And which one of the sites was going to be the Internet
00420 { 2:52:10pm}
01 site for the presence of a church?
02 A. I didn't really know. It's not uncommon to have multiple
03 sites. Probably one would have been for the church and another
04 one would have been for the book sales, and the third, I don't
05 know. But there's just a lot of things going on. We would
06 have certainly had a good use for it.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 40, please?
08 Your Honor, we talked about this yesterday and it was
09 never admitted. May we have it admitted at this point? It is
10 the policy regarding the use of "Urantia" and "Urantian."
11 MR. HILL: No objection.
12 THE COURT: Be admitted.
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Mr. Keeler talked with us yesterday
14 about The Foundation consenting as safe harbors for fair use.
15 How do those domain names fit within the context of safe harbor
16 for fair use, in your view?
17 A. They're entirely within the boundaries of that permission.
18 Q. Tell us why.
19 A. Well, when I say the word, "Urantia," the only thing --
20 the only thing I'm going to mean is the planet earth, or in the
21 case of these web domains, it says, "The Urantia Book." So, I
22 mean, there's nothing that I'm referring to but the book here.
23 So, on the two that say, "The Urantia Book," it's not -- I'm
24 simply referring to the book that I follow, which is The
25 Urantia Book.
00421 { 2:52:10pm}
01 I don't think I answered that properly. Would you mind --
02 I got off a little bit. Could you bring me back to what your
03 question was?
04 Q. My question is: How does what you did, if it does, fit
05 within safe harbor for fair use?
06 A. Well, in the case of Urantian.org, I was referring to the
07 readers of The Urantia Book. That's under number 1.
08 Q. Down here, "You may use Urantian or Urantians merely to
09 refer to the readers of The Urantia Book or as inhabitants of
10 planet earth"?
11 A. Right. Right. And then with respect to, "The Urantia
12 Book," The Urantia Book means the earth book, so that's really
13 what it really means to Urantia Book readers. And, so, when I
14 say, "The Urantia Book," it's a reference to the planet earth.
15 It couldn't possibly be anything else. The last thing I would
16 want to do is refer to Urantia Foundation, with all due
17 respect.
18 Q. There was an issue raised by Mr. Keeler about confusion,
19 and the view of The Foundation is they don't want to be
20 confused -- or they don't want any confusion in the minds of
21 people that might access the Internet when they see
22 UrantiaBook.com, that it's really Michael Foundation or however
23 you call them as opposed to The Urantia Foundation. What's
24 your response to the confusion issue?
25 A. I don't believe it to be a sincere comment, in the first
00422 { 2:52:10pm}
01 place.
02 Q. Well, regardless of whether it was or it wasn't, what's
03 your view of -- what's your response to the confusion issue?
04 Did you intend for it to be confused with The Urantia
05 Foundation?
06 A. Absolutely not.
07 Q. Did you want it to be confused with The Urantia
08 Foundation?
09 A. Absolutely not.
10 Q. Do you want people to align the Michael Foundation with
11 The Urantia Foundation?
12 A. Hardly.
13 Q. Why?
14 A. Well, you know, they have a different approach toward
15 things. Theirs is that we're going to control everything, and
16 I just don't buy into that philosophy. So I think the people
17 involved are very nice but we just have a difference in the way
18 that we look at the way this message needs to go into the world
19 and I think it's good when there are differences. I mean, it's
20 good as long as one person doesn't try to clobber the people
21 that feel differently.
22 Q. Did you register those domain names out of spite?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Have you used them?
25 A. Not one of them has ever been used.
00423 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. There was discussion here yesterday about commercial use,
02 commercial competition, goods and service, competing for the
03 goods and services of The Urantia Foundation. Are you doing
04 that?
05 A. No. Well, they've never been used, in the first place. I
06 would never have done that even if they had been used.
07 Q. The other allegation and accusation I think that comes
08 from Mr. Keeler's testimony yesterday is that you've got them
09 and he can't get them. What's your response to that?
10 A. Well, --
11 THE COURT: Wait just a moment. Did you have an
12 objection?
13 MR. HILL: Can I approach, Your Honor?
14 THE COURT: Sure.
15 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
16 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
17 MR. ABOWITZ: They're worried I'm going to get into
18 something. I'll withdraw the question.
19 THE COURT: Okay. You'll withdraw the question?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Yeah. I don't want to go there.
21 MR. HILL: I was just making sure.
22 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
23 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
24 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to withdraw the question.
25 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Are there -- Have you done a survey of
00424 { 2:52:10pm}
01 the Internet to determine if there are other persons or groups
02 or entities that use "Urantian" or "Urantia" or "Urantia Book"
03 or some combination of those?
04 A. Yes, I have.
05 Q. How many are there?
06 A. There appear to be in excess of 50 different domains that
07 have the word "Urantia" in them that don't appear to have any
08 connection with Urantia Foundation.
09 Q. And --
10 A. There are more than 900 different Urantia web sites.
11 Maybe they don't have the word "Urantia" or "Urantian" in the
12 title to it but there's an order of magnitude, more of
13 independent web sites that have "Urantia Book" and "Urantia"
14 all over them. As far as the names go, I counted in excess of
15 50.
16 Q. Is it your view that under the fair -- the safe harbor of
17 the fair use doctrine and policy of The Foundation, that you're
18 as entitled to those -- you and Michael are as entitled to
19 those domain names as The Foundation?
20 A. I don't see anything in it that says that that wouldn't be
21 perfectly suitable. I don't see anything in there that says
22 whether it's commercial or noncommercial. It just says anyone
23 can do it. Mr. Keeler interpreted it to be commercial but I
24 don't see the word "commercial" in there.
25 Q. Well, I think he finally said that. But you haven't made
00425 { 2:52:10pm}
01 any commercial use of those domain names?
02 A. I've made no use whatsoever of them.
03 Q. So you've not profited by them?
04 A. No.
05 Q. You've not enhanced the sales of Jesus - A New Revelation
06 by virtue of those domain sites?
07 A. No.
08 Q. Have you interfered in any way with the business,
09 commercial or religious, of The Urantia Foundation?
10 A. Not in the least.
11 Q. Now, we saw yesterday Mr. Keeler said that he didn't
12 believe that there was a generic name, "Urantian," at least he
13 didn't believe there was until -- there wasn't since he stopped
14 using it in the early days, he said. Describe for us how that
15 term is used.
16 A. It's common as dirt among people that are Urantia Book
17 readers. They call each other Urantians.
18 Q. And does it have other uses, other than to refer to the
19 earth and those things that are in the book?
20 A. Well, typically, among Urantia Book readers, followers,
21 the word is not used so much in terms of inhabitants of the
22 earth; it just means people that are readers of The Urantia
23 Book is what it means.
24 Q. Or people who are followers?
25 A. Yeah.
00426 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Or in terms of Mr. Keeler's letter, potential tithers?
02 A. Well, I don't think they think of it in the money terms.
03 It's just --
04 Q. No, no, and I wasn't being facetious but that's how he
05 referred to Urantians, the same as Mormons?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. Same as Seventh Day Adventists?
08 A. He didn't -- I don't think he meant in that that those
09 that are willing to tithe are the ones called Mormons -- excuse
10 me -- the ones called Urantians, but those that read the book
11 are just simply known among -- we're known among ourselves as
12 Urantians.
13 Q. And that's similar to those that the Book of Mormon are
14 Mormons?
15 A. I'm not a Mormon but I think that would probably -- as far
16 as I know, that's the case.
17 Q. What is your view of the mark or the alleged infringement
18 of a mark with respect to The Urantia Book, either dot-org or
19 dot-com or whatever it is?
20 A. In the course of being on the board of The Urantia Book
21 Fellowship, we felt like we had to be pretty careful because
22 these guys took us to court over a bunch of nothing on this
23 flyer. And, so, in the course of it, we discovered that it's
24 the policy of the copyright office, or the trademark office,
25 one, anyway the titles of books or the U.S. Government policy
00427 { 2:52:10pm}
01 is that titles of books are not subject to being trademarked
02 because you don't have any way to refer to the thing.
03 An example is here on this -- this is an index to The
04 Urantia Book. It's hard to think how I would say what this
05 book is without saying The Urantia Book. You know, it would be
06 the index to that book whose name may not be spoken or
07 something. You know, you have to be -- there has to be some
08 way to refer to the thing which -- this is not referring to
09 Urantia Foundation. It's referring to this book right here.
10 And, so, our view -- the view of The Urantia Book Fellowship,
11 which has been using this word now for almost -- well, over 10
12 years, and with, you know -- I mean, we're still using it and,
13 so, I don't really see what the difference is between them
14 using it and it being on this book and other organizations, The
15 Center for Urantia Book Synergy, and that and it being on a web
16 domain.
17 Q. Well, --
18 A. So, I never thought that there was any problem whatsoever
19 in any legal problem in registering a web domain.
20 Q. One of the claims in the lawsuit -- the counterclaims in
21 the lawsuit by Urantia Foundation is that there has been a
22 violation of the anti-cybersquatting act. Are you familiar
23 with that?
24 A. I am now.
25 Q. And what is your understanding of what the claim is?
00428 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Well, first of all, the act wasn't in existence when these
02 things were -- when these names were filed, so it wasn't a
03 consideration at all. The law was passed after, you know -- I
04 mean, I didn't know there was an anti-cybersquatting act when I
05 registered those names in the first place.
06 My understanding of why it exists is to keep people from
07 registering Generalmotors.com and then taking that name and
08 offering to sell it to General Motors to say, "Look, we'll sell
09 you your name if you'll give us some big bucks." That sort of
10 thing.
11 Q. Was that your intention when you registered these?
12 A. Heavens no.
13 Q. Now, hypothetically, I understand you're not using them,
14 but if someone was interested in The Urantia Book and went to
15 the web site of Urantia Book and came and it led somebody to
16 the Michael Foundation and led somebody to Jesus - A New
17 Revelation, what's your view about whether one would be
18 confused?
19 A. Well, as I said, there's nothing there currently to be
20 confused about because it doesn't even exist. It's simply a
21 registration. But I would never -- I've never done anything
22 knowingly to confuse anything I've ever done with The Urantia
23 Foundation because it wouldn't be fair to them, and I
24 personally wouldn't want the association. And, so, you know,
25 we're kind of agreed on that. So, it's inconceivable that I
00429 { 2:52:10pm}
01 would not make it clear that this is, you know, something
02 that's not associated with Urantia Foundation.
03 Q. In your mind, confusion is not an issue?
04 A. Well, it can't be an issue until something exists. It's
05 not even there. So, it's all kind of hypothetical as to what
06 confusion might in the future be. I'm telling you what my
07 attitude toward it is, but there's nothing to be confused
08 about.
09 Q. When the lawsuit was filed in Arizona, did it include
10 trademark claims?
11 A. No.
12 Q. The trademark claims were made here in response to the
13 lawsuit filed by Michael Foundation?
14 A. Correct. That was the first I heard about it.
15 Q. Now, what is it that Harry McMullan and Michael Foundation
16 would like this jury and court to do? What is the relief that
17 you're seeking? Do you want money?
18 A. No.
19 Q. What do you want?
20 A. I want to be able to use those words in the way that they
21 said I could use them, and I am absolutely content to take
22 their exact words on that sheet of paper and live with that.
23 Q. You want to be able to deal within this policy with
24 respect to safe harbors for fair use and use these names?
25 A. That's all I want.
00430 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. What about the copyright?
02 A. I want the copyright in the public domain.
03 Q. And that --
04 A. I think it is in the public domain and I'm hoping the jury
05 will agree that it's in the public domain.
06 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have, Your Honor.
07 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
08 MR. HILL: If I could have a moment, Your Honor.
09 THE COURT: Sure.
10 MR. HILL: I'm just buried in paper.
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. HILL:
13 Q. Mr. McMullan, my understanding of the cover on Jesus - A
14 New Revelation is that it's a Dali painting; correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Mr. Dali painted it and he's an individual; correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. I've heard, and you may have heard as well, that Dali
19 claims that he was -- that he was painting that painting of
20 Jesus from devine inspiration. Did you ever hear that?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. And, nevertheless, you paid royalties to use the right to
23 the Dali cover art on Jesus - A New Revelation; is that
24 correct?
25 A. Yes, I did.
00431 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And you didn't pay it to Dali or his estate or his heirs,
02 did you?
03 A. No.
04 Q. You paid it to an organization that owned the rights;
05 true?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. In discussing the cybersquatting claims just a moment ago,
08 just so we're clear, you do recall your previous testimony in
09 this case where you stated that if and when you prevail
10 regarding the cybersquatting claims, you do intend to operate
11 web sites on those domains. Do you recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that's still true?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And your testimony is that you don't believe that there
16 would be any confusion from that occurring with respect to the
17 Internet?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. What about diversion? Any potential for diversion
20 that you see in that? Could possibly Michael Foundation or
21 yourself personally benefit from having the additional traffic
22 on your web site that possibly started off looking for The
23 Urantia Foundation or the publisher of The Urantia Book?
24 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to object to the form, Judge
25 THE COURT: Restate your question. It's a compound
00432 { 2:52:10pm}
01 question, I think.
02 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Did you consider diversion as a possible
03 issue regarding these domain name registrations?
04 A. No, I didn't.
05 Q. So, in your mind, there was not a realistic possibility of
06 consumer confusion nor was there a realistic possibility that a
07 consumer might be diverted to your web site as opposed to
08 Urantia Foundation's?
09 A. I think I said I didn't consider the issue.
10 Q. You know Urantia Foundation's web site is WWW.Urantia.org;
11 true?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And if you were to operate a web site on WWW.Urantian.org,
14 you'd be one misstroke on the keyboard away from possibly
15 benefiting from those who were trying to key in Urantia
16 Foundation's web site. That doesn't concern you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. There's been some previous testimony in this case
19 comparing Internet domain names to telephone numbers. Do you
20 agree with that analogy?
21 A. It's hard for me to give a yes or no answer to that.
22 Q. Okay. Well, you certainly know what a mnemonic telephone
23 number is; right? 1-800-Urantia, for example.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. 1-800-American for American Airlines reservations?
00433 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Yes, I do.
02 Q. Okay. And, of course, you were familiar, from your
03 previous experience in the court case in Chicago that you
04 referred to, with the fact that Urantia Foundation took the
05 position, at least with regard to mnemonic telephone numbers,
06 that they were trademark infringing; correct?
07 A. Correct.
08 Q. Yes. And the policy that Mr. Abowitz was showing you that
09 you were talking about wanting to benefit from, was that policy
10 actually in effect at the time that you registered these
11 domains?
12 A. No.
13 Q. It was not. It was passed after that; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But you had previous experience with Urantia Foundation
16 that predated your registration of the domain names wherein you
17 knew that Urantia Foundation considered mnemonic telephone
18 numbers to be trademark infringing; correct?
19 A. But the judge didn't.
20 MR. HILL: Judge, may I approach the witness?
21 Q. (BY MR. HILL) This is a certified copy of Judge
22 Leinenweber's order and judgment in the case that we're
23 referring to. Do you recognize it?
24 A. I've never seen it before.
25 Q. So you've never seen the final order in the case that
00434 { 2:52:10pm}
01 you're claiming that the judge threw it out of court?
02 A. I was present at the meeting. I was not -- I don't
03 believe I've ever seen the final order.
04 Q. Were you aware that Judge Leinenweber's final order orders
05 The Fellowship to refrain from the use of a 1-800-Urantia
06 telephone number, that that was, in fact, the final disposition
07 of that litigation?
08 A. We had refrained already, sir.
09 Q. But the judge ordered you to refrain, true, as The
10 Fellowship?
11 A. True.
12 Q. You are -- You're an executive in private business
13 presently; correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And you run your own -- you run your own show, for all
16 intents and purposes; right?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Well, how big of a -- how many employees does Alliance
19 Steel have?
20 A. About 275.
21 Q. And you're the chairman; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That puts you at the top of that corporate pyramid;
24 correct?
25 A. Yes. But it's a team.
00435 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. I have no doubt that you put your faith in those who carry
02 out the business on a day-to-day operational level, but what
03 I'm referring to is you have the final say?
04 A. Yes, I do.
05 Q. Don't you?
06 And you also are at least a majority owner of Alliance
07 Steel; is that not correct?
08 A. Yes, I am.
09 Q. Which means that ultimately you control -- you can control
10 any aspect of that business if you want?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you also operate McMullan companies; isn't that
13 correct?
14 A. That's a d/b/a, but, yes.
15 Q. Okay. I just saw it as the company that you listed having
16 possession of the Michael Foundation tax returns. Is it a
17 company or is it not really a company?
18 A. It's not really a company.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. It's a d/b/a.
21 Q. Okay. A d/b/a for --
22 A. For general business interests that are not associated
23 with Alliance Steel.
24 Q. Is it actually incorporated or is it just a d/b/a for
25 Harry McMullan?
00436 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. It's just a d/b/a.
02 Q. Okay. All right. And you're the treasurer of The
03 Fellowship, an organization that we've heard of?
04 A. Yes, I am.
05 Q. And you're the founder of Asoka Foundation?
06 A. Yes, I am.
07 Q. And you're also the founder of Michael Foundation?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And are there any other organizations that you control
10 other than the ones that I've just mentioned?
11 A. I'm the trustee of my father's estate.
12 Q. Okay. Anything else?
13 A. I am the president of a company that is going to be
14 producing Aloe Vera products.
15 Q. And you're the president of that company as well?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you have an ownership interest?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, I want to track a little bit of your previous
20 testimony to the jury.
21 You mentioned -- you started off with your testimony
22 yesterday, as I recall, by mentioning your involvement with a
23 radio broadcast in northern California.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you recall that testimony?
00437 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I do.
02 Q. That radio broadcast is affiliated with the same Family of
03 God Foundation that Mr. Keeler testified about during his
04 examination. Do you recall that?
05 A. Yes, I do.
06 Q. And that is correct, isn't it?
07 A. Yes, it is.
08 Q. You were both affiliated with that foundation?
09 A. I'm not sure he was affiliated at the time. I
10 disaffiliated in early 1973 and I'm not sure at that time
11 whether Mr. Keeler was affiliated. He was later.
12 Q. Okay. You bought -- You mentioned that you've purchased
13 4- to 5,000 Urantia Books; is that true?
14 A. Well, the way the question was phrased was that how many
15 have I been responsible for. I understood it that way. So,
16 there's this organization called Asoka that we were referring
17 to and the vast bulk of those were purchased and resold to
18 other people through Asoka Foundation.
19 Q. That's the clarification I was looking for. Thank you.
20 Can you buy The Urantia Book today? Is it publicly
21 available?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Any difficulty in getting hold of copies of The Urantia
24 Book presently?
25 A. None that I know of, depending on what version. You can
00438 { 2:52:10pm}
01 get all The Foundation books you want, as far as I know.
02 Q. Okay. And is there anything presently preventing you from
03 purchasing Urantia Books and giving them away, if you so
04 desire?
05 A. Not that I know of.
06 Q. Is there anything preventing you from logging on to
07 WWW.Amazon.com and buying Urantia Books and then turning around
08 and trying to resell them if that's what you want to do?
09 A. Well, there would be a price situation there. The reason
10 these books were bought through Asoka is people wanted to get
11 them cheaper. I resold them at cost. And, so, the point was
12 they would get them cheaper than they could if they were buying
13 through a book store and they were giving them away. So, I
14 don't think you -- if you buy through Amazon, I presume you'd
15 pay retail. But you'd pay whatever Amazon's price is.
16 Q. You mentioned that you attend conferences about
17 The Urantia Book all over the country but you've never attended
18 a conference that's been sponsored by Urantia Foundation; is
19 that true?
20 A. To the best of my recollection, that's true.
21 Q. That's not necessarily indicative of how every executive
22 in The Fellowship participates in conferences; true?
23 A. Correct. Other members of The Fellowship board have
24 attended Urantia Foundation conferences.
25 Q. Persons such as Marvin Galron (sp) --
00439 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. -- who's on the executive committee with yourself?
03 A. That's correct.
04 Q. There was some testimony yesterday about the Index to The
05 Urantia Book that you published. Do you have a copy of that
06 with you?
07 A. Yes, I do.
08 Q. When you published that, did Urantia Foundation threaten
09 you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Didn't file a lawsuit over your index?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Is that also true of When Things Go Wrong, the
14 pamphlet that you testified about this morning?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Is that also true of 21 Steps To A Spiritual Awakening?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. In fact, with regard to 21 Steps To A Spiritual Awakening,
19 you actually asked Urantia Foundation for copyright permission
20 to go forward with that, the publication of that project; is
21 that correct?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. Yes, you did.
24 And did I understand your testimony correctly that you
25 also believe that you may have asked Urantia Foundation for
00440 { 2:52:10pm}
01 copyright permission with respect to When Things Go Wrong?
02 A. It's kind of unclear. I think when I was going through
03 the document inspection at Urantia Foundation, I saw something
04 that indicated from a member of The Urantia Foundation staff
05 that I had written or made an inquiry of some kind. And, so,
06 that's the basis on which I say that. I was unable to find any
07 records of my records that made that clear.
08 Q. Okay. Now, I want to take you back to the time when
09 Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood split, and you were,
10 of course, an executive with Urantia Brotherhood.
11 Once Urantia Brotherhood renamed itself, let's just say,
12 for sake of simplicity, to The Fellowship for The Fifth Epochal
13 Revelation, I believe was your testimony.
14 A. Fellowship of Urantia Book Readers.
15 Q. That's what it initially was?
16 A. No, I think -- well, it had a couple of names. Do you
17 want me to go on?
18 Q. Can we just call it The Fellowship?
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. Let's just call it The Fellowship.
21 Once The Fellowship moved out of 533 Diversey Parkway in
22 Chicago, do you recall in the early 1990s working on a project
23 with Gard Jameson to produce a Folio Views computerized version
24 of The Urantia Book?
25 A. I did.
00441 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And did there come a time in connection with that project
02 in either 1990 or 1991 when Mr. Jameson assigned his rights and
03 interests in the outcome of that project to Urantia Foundation?
04 A. I don't know.
05 Q. Okay. Do you recall being asked by Urantia Foundation to
06 assign your rights in such a project to Urantia Foundation?
07 A. No, I don't.
08 Q. Okay. You testified in some detail about the origin of
09 the idea to produce a book that replicated the entirety or at
10 least the substantial entirety of the contents of part IV of
11 The Urantia Book, and that goes all the way back to 1995;
12 correct?
13 A. That's correct. I think that's -- I may be off a little
14 on the year but I think that's correct.
15 Q. Now, you also recall, of course, that in the early 1990s
16 there was a lawsuit brought by Urantia Foundation against a
17 woman named Kristen Maaherra regarding a certain Folio Views
18 index and copy of The Urantia Book that was being distributed
19 on computer diskettes?
20 A. I wasn't aware she was using the folio program but in all
21 other respects I agree with your answer.
22 Q. Okay. Okay. Well, let's just say for the sake of
23 simplicity that she copied The Urantia Book onto a computer
24 diskette and was distributing it around anonymously.
25 A. That's my understanding.
00442 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Yes. And that litigation began in the early 1990s as
02 well; correct?
03 A. Correct.
04 Q. And at some point during that litigation in early 1995, do
05 you recall a time when the trial court judge in that case,
06 Judge Urbom, entered an order saying that the copyright in The
07 Urantia Book was in the public domain?
08 A. Yes, I do.
09 Q. Yes. And, so, in 1995 you had discussions, apparently,
10 according to your earlier testimony, with Mr. Siegel and
11 Mr. Jameson, who are now Urantia Foundation trustees, about
12 doing a project to print part IV of The Urantia Book; is that
13 accurate?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Yes. And The Urantia Book at that time, because of Judge
16 Urbom's order, was completely in the public domain; true?
17 A. True.
18 Q. It was fair game; anybody could do anything they wanted to
19 to it; right?
20 A. That's true.
21 Q. But then there came another time, approximately two years
22 later, and I'm sure you recall this, where the United States
23 Court of Appeals restored the copyright and said that the
24 copyright was valid. Do you recall that?
25 A. Yes, I do.
00443 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Yes. And, so, at that point in 1997, the copyright was no
02 longer in the public domain. It was once again a full
03 copyright and The Urantia Foundation had rights, at least
04 according to the United States Court of Appeals. Do you recall
05 that?
06 A. I don't recall the ruling being that it was a full
07 copyright. It was a compilation copyright, which is a very
08 different animal.
09 Q. Okay, okay. Fair enough.
10 A. But in other respects, I agree with your answer.
11 Q. Yes. So, they had some type of a copyright?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Yes. And we'll just say that reasonable minds might
14 differ on the rest of it.
15 But the point that I'm --
16 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I object to the comment of
17 counsel.
18 THE COURT: Just ask your question, counselor,
19 please.
20 MR. HILL: Sure.
21 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Once -- After 1997, in 1998, Mr. Siegel
22 and Mr. Jameson were then asked to become trustees of Urantia
23 Foundation; correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And once they became trustees of Urantia Foundation, did
00444 { 2:52:10pm}
01 either of them attempt to get you involved in any activities of
02 Urantia Foundation or on behalf of Urantia Foundation?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. Okay. Tell the jury about that. What do you recall being
05 invited to do?
06 A. The principal thing was The Urantia Foundation was about
07 to print a new edition of The Urantia Book and Mr. Siegel asked
08 for my help in trying to -- in trying to do that because I had
09 had some experience with book publishing. And, so, he asked me
10 to lay out the steps that would be necessary to get the book
11 printed and to correct the text in ways where errors might have
12 crept in and so forth over the number -- there were, I don't
13 know, eight or -- 10 or 11 printings at that time, so I made a
14 proposal -- he asked me to lay out what the steps would be to
15 accomplish that, first of all, to get the text corrected and,
16 secondly, to go through the typesetting process.
17 Q. Okay. Anything else that you recall in the way of
18 Mr. Jameson or Mr. Siegel attempting to get you involved in
19 Urantia Foundation activities?
20 A. You're going to have to refresh my memory. I can't think
21 of anything else.
22 Q. I'm just asking.
23 A. I'm sorry. I can't think of anything else. There may be
24 but I don't know.
25 Q. Okay. What about Ms. Tonia Baney? Can you ever recall
00445 { 2:52:10pm}
01 her asking you to participate in any Urantia Foundation
02 activities?
03 A. Oh, every time we have a conversation, she does.
04 Q. Okay. And when --
05 A. She never fails to.
06 Q. When did you start having conversations with Ms. Baney?
07 How far does that go back?
08 A. I'm not sure.
09 Q. Okay. Would you say it goes back more than a year?
10 A. Oh, yeah.
11 Q. More than, say, three years?
12 A. I'm really not sure but I would say three years is
13 probably -- that would probably be a good guess.
14 Q. Okay. And, specifically, do you recall Ms. Baney asking
15 you to participate in a project to make a video or film on the
16 life of Jesus as an alternative to your Jesus - A New
17 Revelation project?
18 A. Oh, she had a laundry list of things that it would be fun,
19 from her standpoint, for me to participate in.
20 Q. And was that one of them?
21 A. Well, I think it was. I'm not sure but it probably was.
22 She would say, "Look, you can do this or you can do this. Just
23 don't do that." That was her basic point.
24 Q. Now, you founded Asoka Foundation in 1996, I thought you
25 said; is that --
00446 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I think it was 1983.
02 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let's back up.
03 Referring to the tax exemption, when, to the best of your
04 recollection, did Asoka become a tax-exempt organization?
05 A. I think it was in 1983.
06 Q. Okay. So Asoka has been a tax-exempt organization for a
07 number of years?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And at some point during the Maaherra litigation, you
10 began accepting donations from other persons through Asoka
11 Foundation and using that money to help fund Ms. Maaherra's
12 defense and counterclaim challenging the validity of the
13 copyright; isn't that true?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Object to the form of the question, to
15 the use of the word "you."
16 THE COURT: Restate your question.
17 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Okay. Asoka Foundation at some point began
18 accepting donations from third persons to then take that money
19 and contribute it towards Ms. Maaherra's legal pursuits
20 involving the case with Urantia Foundation?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Yes. And that was done at your behest; true?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Well, what was the --
25 A. Well, here's what the situation is. For many years people
00447 { 2:52:10pm}
01 had been aware that I --
02 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. McMullan. My question is just: Who's
03 behest was it done?
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I think he was responding
05 to the question.
06 THE COURT: No, I don't think he was responding to
07 the question.
08 Listen carefully to the question he asked and respond to
09 that question.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
11 THE COURT: You'll be given an opportunity to expand
12 by --
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
14 THE COURT: -- your attorney later on.
15 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Who told you to do that? I mean, was there
16 anyone else in control of Asoka Foundation at that time?
17 A. Money that I gave to Asoka Foundation and that was given
18 in turn to the Maaherra defense was done at my behest. It was
19 not at my behest, I did not solicit other people to give to
20 Asoka Foundation --
21 Q. Right.
22 A. -- who in turn was sent to the Kristen Maaherra defense.
23 Q. How did people come to know that if they wanted to
24 contribute to Ms. Maaherra's case, they could make a
25 tax-deductible contribution to Asoka Foundation to accomplish
00448 { 2:52:10pm}
01 that purpose?
02 A. Asoka had been around for many, many years and people had
03 been doing that same sort of thing with respect to Urantia
04 activities. And, so, --
05 Q. Asoka had been funding people's legal defenses since the
06 early 1980s or was this the first time?
07 A. I don't think that Asoka Foundation has ever funded a
08 legal case other -- helped to fund a legal case other than in
09 the Maaherra defense.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. There are lots of other projects though.
12 Q. Right. Oh, I have no doubt. We've seen some of the work
13 product.
14 My next question is: How much did you personally, either
15 through Asoka Foundation or individually, contribute to
16 Ms. Maaherra for use in litigation with Urantia Foundation?
17 A. About $73,000.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 You called your organization, during your direct
20 examination, The Urantia Fellowship. Do you recall that?
21 A. It was a misstatement if I did say that.
22 Q. Okay. Okay. It's The Urantia Book Fellowship, isn't it?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. And The Urantia Book Fellowship, when The Fellowship
25 changed to that particular name, there are a number, Urantia
00449 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Foundation objected; isn't that true?
02 A. I believe it is.
03 Q. Yes. And there was -- there was, just a few months ago in
04 March, a mediation between Urantia Foundation and The
05 Fellowship to try to resolve that and some other issues without
06 having to go into the courts; isn't that true?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. And Mr. Plourde represented The Urantia Book Fellowship in
09 those proceedings; isn't that true?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And one of the things that came out of that mediation was
12 that The Fellowship agreed to license from Urantia Foundation
13 the right to use the name The Urantia Book Fellowship; isn't
14 that true?
15 A. That's my understanding.
16 Q. Yes. And, as a result of that -- of those negotiations,
17 the parties, The Urantia Book Fellowship and Urantia
18 Foundation, were able to avoid going into a more formal legal
19 process; true?
20 A. That's my understanding.
21 Q. While the Maaherra case was pending on appeal, as an
22 executive of The Fellowship, did you support the notion that
23 The Fellowship should intervene in that Maaherra appeal and
24 file a brief on behalf of Ms. Maaherra's position?
25 A. Yes.
00450 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And was that, in fact, done?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And Mr. Plourde was the attorney who represented
04 The Fellowship in participating at that appellate level; true?
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. And he filed a brief on behalf of The Fellowship with the
07 United States Court of Appeals on behalf of Ms. Maaherra; true?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. Mr. Plourde has been your personal attorney for a number
10 of years?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How many years would you say?
13 A. 18 or 20, 15. Somewhere between 15 and 20 years, I would
14 say.
15 Q. Now, this case was originally filed in Arizona; true?
16 Urantia Foundation --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- originally brought an action against Michael Foundation
19 regarding Jesus - A New Revelation in Arizona; isn't that true?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And isn't it also true that that is the locale, the
22 jurisdiction, where The Urantia Foundation Maaherra litigation
23 had occurred?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, you mentioned, in connection with this case, that
00451 { 2:52:10pm}
01 your position has essentially changed during this litigation,
02 hasn't it?
03 A. In some ways. In other ways, not. Partly yes, partly no.
04 Q. When you brought this case in this court challenging the
05 validity of Urantia Foundation's copyright, my understanding of
06 the complaint, and you correct me if I'm wrong, was that part
07 IV was revelation and it didn't have any human authors, so
08 there couldn't be a copyright; isn't that true?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. But as a result of certain documents that you've seen in
11 publicly-available records and Urantia Foundation's business
12 records, you've come to a different conclusion; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that conclusion is that this was a person who wrote
15 this and it was written by inspiration, sort of like Dali's
16 painting; correct?
17 A. I don't know about Dali's painting, sir.
18 Q. Okay. Well --
19 A. But it was written by inspiration, yes.
20 Q. I understand.
21 In the Urantia -- now, The Urantia Foundation/Burton case
22 was one of the things that you mentioned. You said that in
23 that case Urantia Foundation took the position that the subject
24 of the contact sessions between The Contact Commission and the
25 sleeping subject was actually the author of the Urantia Papers
00452 { 2:52:10pm}
01 that are in The Urantia Book. Do you recall that testimony?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. And isn't it -- That case never actually went before a
04 jury; isn't that correct?
05 A. That's correct.
06 Q. You've reviewed that file?
07 A. Yes, I have.
08 Q. And you're personally familiar with its contents?
09 A. Well, I've reviewed it.
10 Q. From a standpoint of having reviewed it to see if there
11 was anything in there to assist you in preparing your case;
12 correct?
13 A. I'm not a lawyer, but I reviewed it.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. I reviewed it in a sense of a lay person reading it, yes.
16 Q. Right. Yesterday, the Judge gave the jury an instruction
17 regarding summary judgment. Do you know what summary judgment
18 is?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Tell the jury what your lay understanding of summary
21 judgment is.
22 A. It is an action by the Court that -- in which the Court
23 decides that the position taken by one party is correct as a
24 matter of law even if you give all the benefit of the facts to
25 the opposing party. How'd I do?
00453 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. I think -- I give you an A on that exam.
02 A. Okay.
03 Q. So, the issue then, if Urantia Foundation wants summary
04 judgment in the Burton case, Urantia Foundation has to accept
05 the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Burton's claim;
06 true?
07 A. True.
08 Q. And do you know in that case whether or not Mr. Burton was
09 claiming that he had been told by Dr. Sadler that the sleeping
10 subject had written the Urantia Papers?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And do you know whether or not Mr. Burton was therefore
13 claiming that the sleeping subject was the author of the
14 Urantia Papers and he had not given whatever rights he had in
15 those papers to Dr. Sadler and The Contact Commission?
16 A. That's my understanding.
17 Q. Yes. And, so, on summary judgment, in order to get
18 summary judgment, then Urantia Foundation would have to accept
19 what Mr. Burton was alleging to the Court as true and say, "We
20 still win"; right?
21 A. I think that's correct.
22 Q. In your mind, is that the same thing as conceding the
23 point as to who the author of the Urantia Papers are believed
24 to be?
25 A. In this case, yes.
00454 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Okay. Now, you also mentioned a certain affidavit by
02 Edith Cook, and you've seen that affidavit, you've reviewed its
03 contents personally; is that correct?
04 A. Yes, I have.
05 Q. And that affidavit was filed by Urantia Foundation in the
06 Burton King litigation; true?
07 A. That's my understanding.
08 Q. Yes. So -- And in that affidavit, I believe you
09 mentioned Ms. Cook states that Dr. Sadler came into possession
10 of 196 handwritten manuscripts between the years 1926 and 1935;
11 true?
12 A. That's my recollection.
13 Q. Yes. And that document -- Are you aware of any facts
14 that would suggest that that document is not a part of the
15 public record? It was filed in a court case; right?
16 A. I never heard of it until you introduced it, so I don't
17 know how to respond to that.
18 Q. Right.
19 A. I didn't know -- I didn't know that it was part of that
20 case.
21 Q. Right. You had never gone to Los Angeles where that case
22 went on and looked --
23 A. At that time we had never -- we did not have the file on
24 the Urantia research case. Never seen it.
25 Q. Okay. And based upon your review of the Cook affidavit,
00455 { 2:52:10pm}
01 combined with Dr. Sadler's statements that the phenomenon that
02 he observed was not the product of automatic writing, like
03 trance-like writing -- isn't that how you understand that term?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. Based upon that concession, you therefore conclude that
06 the Urantia Papers, instead of being pure revelation, are
07 instead an inspired work product of a single person; true?
08 A. To me, the logic is inescapable.
09 Q. Okay. You actually have the financial means, do you not,
10 to buy Urantia Books and disseminate them any way you want,
11 with the exception of there may be some price limitations
12 because you have to buy them retail?
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Object to the form, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Restate your question, counsel. A little
15 hard to --
16 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Do you have the financial means to buy
17 1,000 Urantia Books and give them away, if you're so inclined?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And has Urantia Foundation ever, say in the last five
20 years, tried to put a limitation on how many Urantia Books you
21 could buy?
22 A. No.
23 Q. They ever tell you that they didn't approve of the study
24 group that you're participating in here in Oklahoma?
25 A. No.
00456 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Ever try to interfere in your efforts to purchase a church
02 building here in Oklahoma City?
03 A. No.
04 Q. Ever tell you that you were misinterpreting The Urantia
05 Book or otherwise attempt to propound an official version of
06 The Urantia Book's views?
07 A. Not in any serious way.
08 Q. And I believe you testified in your deposition that
09 Urantia Foundation, as you understand it, is not set up to be a
10 church; true?
11 A. True.
12 Q. And your organization, The Fellowship, is not set up to be
13 a church; true?
14 A. True.
15 Q. Urantia Foundation has a social affiliate known as
16 International Urantia Association; isn't that true?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. Isn't it true that that organization is organized fairly
19 similarly to the organization of The Fellowship?
20 A. No, based on what I've seen of your records, that would
21 not be true.
22 Q. Okay. Does The Fellowship have local groups that meet and
23 study The Urantia Book?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And they affiliate with The Fellowship, the local
00457 { 2:52:10pm}
01 societies; true?
02 A. Well, there's a difference between the study groups and
03 the societies. It's quite a difference in the way it's set
04 up.
05 Q. Okay. Okay.
06 A. There are study groups in both cases, if that's what
07 you're getting to.
08 Q. Both organizations facilitate the study of the book in a
09 group fashion; right?
10 A. Right, and many of them are combined. Many times, the
11 same people that are adherents to The Urantia Foundation
12 because they share the same book will go to the study groups
13 with the ones that are on The Fellowship side.
14 Q. Yes. And there are people in The Fellowship and people
15 who support Urantia Foundation or members of IUA who are
16 friendly with one another, wouldn't you agree with that?
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. Yes. And some of those people even include people like
19 Gard Jameson and Mo Seigel who are former Fellowship executives
20 and are now executives for Urantia Foundation; true?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. I mean, they still have friends in The Fellowship; isn't
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And once they joined the board of Urantia Foundation in
00458 { 2:52:10pm}
01 1998, did they tell you anything about what they wanted to see
02 in terms of creating more goodwill between the two
03 organizations?
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. Did they indicate that that was, in fact, a goal of
06 theirs?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. They did.
09 And is it not also true that within about six months of
10 their becoming trustees, Urantia Foundation came out with
11 published fair use policies on copyright and trademark,
12 including the one that we were observing during your direct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And do you know whether or not Mr. Siegel and Mr. Jameson
15 supported formal fair use policies to help provide some
16 assurances to persons who wanted to use material from The
17 Urantia Book and use the words "Urantia" and "Urantian"?
18 A. I would think so. I don't know of my own knowledge.
19 Q. So you never had any discussions with them about that or
20 what gave rise to those policis?
21 A. I don't believe that I did, but I feel sure they would
22 have supported it.
23 Q. And is there any official -- official interpretation of
24 The Urantia Book that you're aware of? Is there any
25 organization out there that says, "Hey, this paragraph right
00459 { 2:52:10pm}
01 here means this and if you really believe in The Urantia Book,
02 this is what you need to follow"?
03 A. No. Thank goodness, no.
04 Q. Yes. It's fair to say, is it not, that the contents of
05 The Urantia Book make up a very -- for some people, form the
06 basis of a very personal religion; is that true?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. I mean, a one-on-one relationship between the individual
09 reader and their god, whoever -- or however they perceive God
10 to exist; true?
11 A. That would be the most important aspect of it.
12 Q. Yes. And are you aware of any Muslims, for example, that
13 read The Urantia Book?
14 A. There are not very many. I think there are a couple.
15 Q. Are you aware of any Jews that read The Urantia Book?
16 A. Yes, there are a number of Jews.
17 Q. Any Christians?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. A number of Christians?
20 A. A number of Christians, yes. The preponderence would be
21 Christians and Jews.
22 Q. Okay. So, reading the book and believing or at least
23 thinking that it has a strong message does not necessarily make
24 you fit for one particular religious denomination or
25 affiliation; correct?
00460 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Could you restate the question, please?
02 Q. Sure. Sure. I'll try to make it simpler.
03 Just because you read The Urantia Book doesn't mean you
04 also agree with, say, Judaism?
05 A. Correct.
06 Q. Or Christianity?
07 A. Correct.
08 Q. Or Muslim faith, if you're so inclined?
09 A. Be a little tougher there.
10 Q. But there are some?
11 A. There are some.
12 Q. Yes. Now, in your -- you've told me before that you've
13 communicated that you think the 10-year nightmare of stifling
14 religious expression is about to end with this case. Do you
15 recall telling me that?
16 A. That's my prayer.
17 Q. Yes. And your perception of what is going on in this case
18 is, it's fair to say, is that you're attempting to express your
19 religious faith with Jesus - A New Revelation, and Urantia
20 Foundation is attempting to stifle that?
21 A. I don't agree with that as a characterization of this case
22 at all.
23 Q. Okay. Well --
24 A. I'm not hiding behind religion to say that I'm entitled to
25 do this because it's my religion. It's just a copyright case.
00461 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Okay. Well, we'll certainly look at that when we get to
02 some exhibits later on.
03 Let me ask you a question though. Do you perceive --
04 let's take your last statement, that this is just a copyright
05 case, should be evaluated as a copyright case, but as a
06 by-product of Urantia Foundation's efforts to enforce its
07 copyright, is it stifling your religious expression?
08 A. Well, I'm sitting here in this stand as a result of not
09 being able to produce this work, so I would say that's -- I
10 would call that stifling.
11 Q. Now, nobody actually told you or made you stop producing
12 the work while this litigation was going on; true?
13 A. No, that's really not true.
14 Q. Okay. Are you under any court order that prevents you
15 from printing the book right now?
16 A. The Urantia Foundation filed for -- I believe they filed
17 for an injunction against the distribution. But you'll have to
18 correct -- I don't know if these were discussions between the
19 lawyers or what, so I'm a little shaky on that part. The
20 concept was you guys were going to file for an injunction
21 against the distribution unless we voluntarily ceased, and so
22 we voluntarily ceased to publish because we were going to wait
23 and get the results from this court, one way or the other, as
24 to whether, you know, whether there is a copyright or not.
25 Q. Okay. Do you recall during the time that Urantia
00462 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Foundation filed suit against Robert Burton in the 1970s, do
02 you recall a time when you became aware, sometime in the mid
03 1970s, that that litigation was going on?
04 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm -- I didn't follow that
05 question.
06 THE COURT: Well, I couldn't either. Your voice
07 dropped down at the end, counselor. Restate that slowly and
08 carefully so I can understand what you're asking.
09 Q. (BY MR. HILL) In the mid 1970s, do you recall becoming
10 aware of litigation, copyright litigation, between Urantia
11 Foundation and Robert Burton?
12 A. I didn't get involved in the organization until 1979, so I
13 think that was -- I was kind of an independent reader but I
14 never had any involvement with the organizations. It just
15 never -- I don't even know if I knew about it. It's possible I
16 did but I certainly did not ever see any filings or have any
17 real concept of the issues apart from -- if I knew anything, it
18 would have been here's a guy that Urantia Foundation is suing.
19 So, it was no familiarity whatsoever with the issues.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. And maybe not even any that there was a case.
22 Q. Do you recall -- When did you first visit Urantia
23 Foundation?
24 A. I think it was in 1969.
25 Q. And who did you meet?
00463 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I met Emma Christensen and a lady -- Edith Cook, and a
02 lady named Anna Rossen. I think those were the three ladies
03 that I met, three older ladies.
04 Q. And did you enjoy your visit with Urantia Foundation in
05 1969?
06 A. Yes, I did.
07 Q. Did you return between 1969 and 1975?
08 A. Yes, I did.
09 Q. How many times?
10 A. I'm not sure. I was probably there -- I really don't
11 know. At least a couple or three more times. I'm not sure.
12 Q. Okay. During any of those visits, did anyone ever mention
13 to you that there was a copyright lawsuit going on with Robert
14 Burton?
15 A. Not that I can recall.
16 Q. Okay. So, is it your testimony that during that time,
17 during the mid 1970s, you had no recollection that that
18 litigation was going on?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Okay. Mr. McMullan, can you find in those three black
21 binders that are behind your right shoulder there, can you find
22 a document that is marked 51, behind tab 51?
23 THE WITNESS: Judge, may I move this, please?
24 THE COURT: Sure.
25 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Are you with me?
00464 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I am.
02 Q. Do you recognize Urantia Foundation exhibit 51?
03 A. Yes, I do.
04 Q. Is that your signature at the bottom?
05 A. Yes, it is.
06 Q. Is this a letter that you wrote to Emma Christensen on or
07 about July 24th, 1975?
08 A. Yes, it is.
09 MR. HILL: Your Honor, at this time Urantia
10 Foundation would move for the admission of Urantia Foundation
11 exhibit 51 into evidence.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: I have no objection.
13 THE COURT: Be admitted.
14 MR. HILL: Okay. Call it up.
15 Q. (BY MR. HILL) And, of course, you're affectionately
16 referring to Ms. Christensen as Christie, which was her
17 nickname, I understand; true?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, in the first four paragraphs of the letter, you're
20 relaying very personal information to Ms. Christensen; is that
21 not correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You're telling her how things are going. You didn't live
24 in Chicago at the time; true?
25 A. True.
00465 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And where did you live at this point in time?
02 A. I lived in Washington, North Carolina.
03 Q. Okay. But then in the last paragraph --
04 MR. HILL: Bob, can you call up the last paragraph,
05 "Needless to say."
06 Q. (BY MR. HILL) You say, "Needless to say, I support The
07 Urantia Foundation 100 percent in your efforts to combat
08 infringement of the copyright. I think of you often."
09 So you were aware that there was copyright infringement
10 litigation going on?
11 A. Well, it sounds like I was.
12 Q. And you were friendly with Urantia Foundation at that
13 time, or at least some of its officers?
14 A. I was very friendly with them.
15 MR. HILL: You can take it down.
16 Q. (BY MR. HILL) And in 1989 -- Would you flip back to
17 Urantia Foundation exhibit 50. Do you recognize Urantia
18 Foundation exhibit 50?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Will you tell the jury what that document is.
21 A. This is an agreement that I entered into in conjunction
22 with giving Urantia Foundation the keyword index.
23 Q. Okay. Is that the keyword index project that you referred
24 to in your direct examination?
25 A. Yes, it is.
00466 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Is that your signature on the agreement?
02 A. Yes, it is.
03 MR. HILL: Your Honor, at this point in time, Urantia
04 Foundation moves for the admission of exhibit 50.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Relevancy, Your Honor.
06 THE COURT: Overruled. Be admitted.
07 MR. HILL: Thank you, Your Honor.
08 Call up Urantia Foundation exhibit 50.
09 Can you blow up the first "Whereas"? Actually, blow up
10 the first paragraph, please, Bob.
11 Q. (BY MR. HILL) The first paragraph of this document
12 reflects the fact that an agreement is being entered into by
13 and between Urantia Foundation and Harry McMullan, III. Is
14 that your handwriting on the first paragraph?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 MR. HILL: Bob, can you blow up the second paragraph,
17 the first "Whereas" clause?
18 Q. (BY MR. HILL) The first "Whereas" clause of the agreement
19 says, "Whereas Urantia Foundation is the owner of all right,
20 title and interest in and to the copyright in a book entitled
21 The Urantia Book and has registered its copyright."
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. That was in the agreement that you signed; true?
25 A. True.
00467 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And if you drop down to the first, "Now therefore," that
02 states, "In consideration of the foregoing, and other good and
03 valuable consideration, McMullan hereby acknowledges that
04 Urantia Foundation is the sole owner of all right, title and
05 interest in and to the copyright in The Urantia Book."
06 You agreed to that at least at the time in 1989?
07 A. I signed the document.
08 Q. You signed the document.
09 You actually made -- that's your change on that paragraph,
10 isn't it? You took a pen and you struck a certain portion of
11 that because it says, "Any and all derivative works thereof";
12 true?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you had already published by this point in time
15 When Things Go Wrong and 21 Steps and other secondary works
16 pertaining to The Urantia Book; true?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So, what you were reflecting with that striking of that
19 language was that you didn't want to give your rights to all of
20 the works that you had been permitted to make over to Urantia
21 Foundation; true?
22 A. True.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. HILL: You can take it down, Bob. Thank you.
25 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Is it your perception that the copyright
00468 { 2:52:10pm}
01 and the trademark rights of Urantia Foundation give Urantia
02 Foundation some power that your organizations, Michael
03 Foundation and Asoka Foundation, Fellowship, don't have and,
04 therefore, some type of an advantage over them?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Object to the form, Your Honor.
06 THE COURT: Yes, I didn't follow the question.
07 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Do you perceive the copyright as being an
08 instrument of power?
09 A. I don't think there is a valid copyright.
10 Q. Well, I understand that that's your contention, but have
11 you ever been under the impression that the copyright is an
12 instrument of power?
13 A. Of course.
14 Q. Is that also true for the trademarks?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. HILL: Can I approach the witness, Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Sure.
18 Q. (BY MR. HILL) I've handed you Michael Foundation exhibit
19 35. Is that a document that you're familiar with?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. It's a document that you wrote to Urantia Foundation?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And what's the date on the document?
24 A. October 28th, 1999.
25 Q. Okay. And does it pertain to some of the subject matter
00469 { 2:52:10pm}
01 of this litigation?
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, we'll stipulate it may be
03 admitted.
04 THE COURT: Let the record so reflect. It will be
05 admitted.
06 MR. HILL: Would you call up Michael Foundation
07 exhibit 35? Go to the top, please. Can you highlight that,
08 the date and the -- all the way down through, "Dear." Can you
09 enlarge it?
10 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Is this a letter you wrote to the trustees
11 of Urantia Foundation?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. HILL: Can you enlarge the first paragraph?
15 There you go.
16 Q. (BY MR. HILL) This is your -- This is your letter to the
17 trustees and it pertains to -- it's in response to a letter
18 from the trustees asking you to cease and desist from
19 publishing Jesus - A New Revelation; true?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. And -- well, I won't have you read.
22 You say there that -- you interpret the letter that you
23 received as an effort to dissuade you from your efforts to
24 share Jesus' gospel with the world.
25 A. Yes.
00470 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. But your contention is that for you this is just a
02 copyright case; true?
03 A. That's all that should be before this court. For me and
04 my faith, it's much, much more than that.
05 Q. Okay.
06 MR. HILL: Drop down to the next paragraph, below the
07 quote. There you go.
08 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Did you write this?
09 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. You say, "Notwithstanding your theories about my
11 motivations, you should understand that in assisting Michael
12 Foundation in publishing Jesus - A New Revelation, I am
13 determined to obey Jesus by carrying out his instructions as
14 given in his statement above. I will do this for the remainder
15 of my life according to my best understanding of his
16 instructions, with all the energy, purpose, and resources
17 available to me, and regardless of the consequences."
18 You wrote that; correct?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Can you turn to page 3 of the document, please, sir.
21 MR. HILL: Top paragraph. Hold on just a second.
22 Q. (BY MR. HILL) You say at the top there, "I am attempting
23 to carry out Jesus' instructions as I understand them and I
24 fully intend to do that regardless of anyone's approval or
25 disapproval." Is that true?
00471 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Yes, it is.
02 Q. Is that still your determination?
03 A. I don't intend to violate an order of this court, if
04 that's what you're getting around to, no. But in terms of
05 people that are on my level of doing things, like, you know,
06 other people like Urantia Foundation, absolutely.
07 Q. Okay.
08 MR. HILL: Can you turn to page 4 of the letter,
09 please? Next-to-last paragraph. Yeah.
10 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Here, you write, "Your recent letter
11 states, 'The real question is whether your decision to
12 reproduce, as a separate work, the final 76 papers of The
13 Urantia Book constitutes an infringement of the copyright.' I
14 disagree. From Michael's standpoint, the only one that counts
15 for me, the real question is our relationship to Him, His
16 gospel, and to His unmistakeably clear instructions as to what
17 we must do with His gospel."
18 You wrote that; correct?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Do you agree with the proposition that following
21 your relig- -- the dicta of your conscience in matters of
22 religion provides you with an excuse to break the law?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. So if this jury finds that what you have done in this case
25 and what you want to do on a going-forward basis is illegal,
00472 { 2:52:10pm}
01 you will abide by the jury's decision?
02 A. I certainly will.
03 Q. Have you ever told anyone that you wanted to do any harm
04 or damage to Urantia Foundation?
05 A. No.
06 Q. You have not?
07 A. No.
08 Q. And you recall when I asked you earlier in connection with
09 this case whether you had ever said anything to the effect that
10 you wanted to bring all your financial resources to harm
11 Urantia Foundation or destroy Urantia Foundation and you said
12 you never said anything like that.
13 A. Well, I know what you're going to bring up but I think at
14 the time I disputed that I had said it. So, --
15 Q. Okay. I assume by that, you're referring to the memo that
16 I showed you from Ms. Baney to the trustees?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. But you never told Les Tibbals, for example, that
19 you'd fight Urantia every way possible? Ever say that?
20 A. I don't think I would have said that. I think what he
21 might have -- well, if you want me to elaborate --
22 Q. No, I want your recollection.
23 A. I think he misunderstood what I was getting at.
24 Q. Okay. Well, I mean, I'm not saying that he says it or he
25 doesn't say it. I'm just asking you whether or not you ever
00473 { 2:52:10pm}
01 said that in his presence. Yes or no.
02 A. No.
03 Q. Did you ever -- Have you ever told anyone that Urantia
04 Foundation is pure evil?
05 A. If I did, I apologize.
06 Q. Okay.
07 A. I hope I didn't.
08 Q. Okay. Have you ever told anyone -- Ann Garner, for
09 instance -- and who is Ann Garner?
10 A. She is a Urantian from the Dallas area.
11 Q. Okay. Did she serve with you for a while on the executive
12 committee or general council of The Fellowship?
13 A. I'm not sure if she was on the council but I've known her
14 for a number of years. She may have been.
15 Q. She has been affiliated with The Fellowship for a number
16 of years; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you ever state in her presence that you would bring
19 all your resources to bear to destroy Urantia Foundation?
20 A. The difference is whether it's a copyright or Urantia
21 Foundation. I'm fine with Urantia Foundation. It's just the
22 the copyright aspect of it and I think maybe that's where the
23 source of this misunderstanding comes in. I want Urantia
24 Foundation to print the book, to do translations. I just don't
25 want this hammer over -- that prevents other people from doing
00474 { 2:52:10pm}
01 it. It's true, I've gotten emotional about this thing, and I
02 don't doubt that I've said some things I shouldn't have said.
03 Q. Did you tell Ms. Baney, for example, that you'd keep
04 Urantia Foundation in court for the rest of your life and hers?
05 A. I think I did say that, and I regret it. I was mad.
06 Q. Approximately when did you say that?
07 A. Well, I'm remembering the memo that you showed me and I
08 can't -- I mean, that's the conversation. I would say a year-
09 and-a-half ago, but I'm not exactly sure. I'm not exactly sure
10 when it was.
11 Q. If I suggested to you that the date of that memo was April
12 of 1997, would that refresh your recollection?
13 A. Of '97?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. No, it really doesn't refresh me too much.
16 THE COURT: Counselor, can we take a luncheon break
17 here?
18 MR. HILL: Perfect.
19 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll
20 be recessed until 1:15. Be back in the jury assembly room at
21 that time. I'll remind you of my previous admonition not to
22 discuss this case.
23 Everyone please stand and remain standing.
24 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
25 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
00475 { 2:52:10pm}
01 THE COURT: Court is in recess.
02 (THE LUNCHEON RECESS WAS TAKEN)
03
00476 { 2:52:10pm}
01 AFTERNOON SESSION
02 THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001
03 ---------------------------------------------------------------
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
05 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
07 Mr. Hill, you may resume your examination.
08 MR. HILL: Thank you, Judge.
09 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Mr. McMullan, how much money did you
10 contribute to Michael Foundation in order to finance Jesus - A
11 New Revelation?
12 A. Approximately 30-, $35,000.
13 Q. And did anyone else contribute funds to finance that
14 project?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who else?
17 A. Mary Talley.
18 Q. That's your sister?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How much money did she contribute?
21 A. $25,000.
22 Q. Did those payments represent the total cost of financing
23 the Jesus - A New Revelation project?
24 A. They represented roughly the out-of-pocket costs. All of
25 the typesetting and creation of the index. There were
00477 { 2:52:10pm}
01 substantial other costs involved which probably, if you had to
02 buy them outside, would have been at least that same amount
03 over again.
04 Q. How many hours did you spend working on creating the
05 prototype that you took to the publisher, you personally?
06 A. Really be hard to say. Maybe 800 or 1,000.
07 Q. 800 to 1,000 hours?
08 A. Maybe. I've never thought of it that way. But a lot of
09 time.
10 Q. And it is true, is it not, that Michael Foundation sold at
11 least some copies of Jesus - A New Revelation before you
12 voluntarily ceased further distribution efforts?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it is also true, I believe, that the base price for
15 Jesus - A New Revelation, according to Michael Foundation's
16 records, is $8.95 a copy unless it's bought in bulk?
17 A. I think that's the bulk price.
18 Q. Oh, the bulk price is $8.95?
19 A. I think that's the bulk price. I'm not sure but I think
20 that's right.
21 Q. Okay. And do you recall, I asked you earlier during this
22 case a question as to whether or not Michael Foundation or you
23 had conducted any analysis of the market for sales of either
24 possible sales of Jesus - A New Revelation or the impact of
25 those sales on the sale of The Urantia Book; do you recall me
00478 { 2:52:10pm}
01 asking you that?
02 A. Yes, I do.
03 Q. And do you recall what your answer was?
04 A. Yes, I do.
05 Q. And your answer was that you did not conduct any type of
06 market analysis?
07 A. That's correct.
08 Q. We heard a lot of testimony yesterday about the way that
09 the -- the process that was involved in leading up to the
10 publication of The Urantia Book. Do you deny the existence of
11 The Contact Commission?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Do you deny the existence of a group known as The
14 Forum?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And you certainly don't deny the sleeping subject;
17 correct?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you deny that there were contact sessions that took
20 place between the subject and the Contact Commissioners?
21 A. It's hard to answer that "yes" or "no". I could elaborate
22 if you want me to. Otherwise, I'm not able to give an answer.
23 Q. Okay. Are you familiar -- Do you deny that it was a
24 long-term process that led up to the creation of all of the
25 final forms of the 196 Urantia Papers in manuscript form?
00479 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. The evidence in the record to me is that it was at least
02 three years, two to three years.
03 Q. Okay. Now, earlier --
04 A. It may have been longer.
05 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
06 Two to three years. Earlier this morning, your testimony,
07 as I recall it, was that you saw an affidavit from one Edith
08 Cook and that affidavit had a profound influence on the way
09 that you viewed the facts underlying this case; correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And does not Ms. Cook in her affidavit say that Dr. Sadler
12 came into the possession of the papers between the years 1926
13 and 1935?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And that would suggest a nine-year process; true?
16 A. Well, the word "between" doesn't necessarily mean over the
17 whole period.
18 Q. Okay. Okay. Tell me what evidence you've looked at to
19 conclude that it was at least a two to three-year process.
20 A. It would be the dating in The Urantia Book which says that
21 it's written in 1930 -- excuse me -- 1934 and 1935 as far as
22 parts I, II and III, and the evidence in this case indicates
23 that part IV came one year later than that. So that would be
24 either 1935 or 1936. So, presumably, the man to have written
25 this, it could have taken him -- it's a huge book -- and so it
00480 { 2:52:10pm}
01 would have taken him some period of time prior to that.
02 But as to -- I haven't seen any evidence that it actually
03 was any -- I don't know. I just don't have a basis to know one
04 way or the other.
05 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
06 Have you ever read Dr. Sadler's book, The Mind of
07 Mischief?
08 A. I've read the appendix to it.
09 Q. You have? What is the significance of the appendix to
10 you, if any?
11 A. Well, in this case, there have been a number of people
12 that have -- including Mr. Keeler -- that said that the person
13 who is the patient of Dr. Sadler referred to in The Mind of
14 Mischief is the same person as the contact personality, and
15 there doesn't seem to be any dispute about that. So, most
16 people have assumed that it's the same person referred to in
17 The Mind of Mischief.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MR. HILL: Judge, The Mind of Mischief is Urantia
20 Foundation exhibit 102. I believe we put it on the record
21 already. If not, I'd like to move it into evidence at this
22 time.
23 MR. ABOWITZ: You say it is in the record?
24 MR. HILL: It's a part of the stipulation.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection.
00481 { 2:52:10pm}
01 THE COURT: Admitted.
02 MR. HILL: Thank you, Judge.
03 Q. (BY MR. HILL) I set a copy -- a carbon copy of the text
04 of the book there, it's Urantia Foundation 102. Turn to the
05 index that starts at page 382 and 383, if you would.
06 THE WITNESS: Judge, may I --
07 THE COURT: Right up here, if you need to.
08 MR. HILL: Bob, can we pull that up?
09 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 383?
10 MR. HILL: Yeah, 383. 382 and 383.
11 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Let's take a look at the first paragraph at
12 the top.
13 MR. HILL: Can you blow that up, Bob? Yeah.
14 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Here the doctor writes, "I was brought in
15 contact with it in the summer of 1911 and I've had it under my
16 observation more or less ever since, having been present at
17 probably 250 of the night sessions, many of which have been
18 attended by a stenographer who made voluminous notes."
19 Mr. McMullan, are you aware of any evidence from all of
20 the documents that you've looked at in this case that refutes
21 the proposition that Dr. Sadler states in the appendix?
22 A. Well, if you mean did those notes go into the Urantia
23 Book, yes. If you mean just the simple statement there, no.
24 Q. Yes. That's all -- just talking about the earliest
25 contact sessions right now.
00482 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Do you have any idea what, if any, time these contact
02 sessions ended?
03 A. I have no knowledge whatsoever.
04 Q. Okay. Do you know what the date was in which Dr. Sadler's
05 book, The Mind of Mischief, was published?
06 A. I believe it has a date of 1929 on the copyright page.
07 Q. Yes.
08 MR. HILL: Bob, can you drop down three paragraphs to
09 the paragraph that starts, "18 years"?
10 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Dr. Sadler writes, "18 years of study and
11 careful investigation have failed to reveal the psychic origin
12 of these messages. I find myself at the present time just
13 where I was when I started."
14 Are you aware of any evidence that would refute the
15 proposition that these contact sessions began at least as early
16 as 1911 based upon subtracting 1929 -- 18 years from the 1929
17 date of this book?
18 A. I don't know about the term "contact sessions." You'll
19 have to define that for me.
20 Q. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Night sessions. I'll use
21 Dr. Sadler's terminology here.
22 A. I know nothing about this other than what you're seeing --
23 what you have in this appendix. I have no basis for any
24 independent --
25 Q. And you haven't seen any documentation in the case that
00483 { 2:52:10pm}
01 contradicts what's written --
02 A. The fact that he had night sessions with a patient, no,
03 not at all.
04 Q. 250.
05 Is there anything in this appendix, which is three pages
06 long, where Dr. Sadler refers to the subject as a patient?
07 A. With your permission, I'm going to need to take this apart
08 and look at it.
09 Q. Oh, by all means.
10 A. It's been a long time since --
11 Q. No. By all means.
12 A. He refers to it as "case" but you could take that several
13 ways.
14 Q. "The patient" is not a term that's employed in the
15 appendix?
16 A. No, not that I have seen, just looking at it right there.
17 Q. Okay. And "the stenographer taking notes" reference in
18 the appendix, The Mind of Mischief, do you have any
19 understanding who that person is?
20 A. None at all.
21 Q. Do you have any evidence to refute the proposition that it
22 was Emma Christensen?
23 A. I have -- yes, I think so, because my impression is that
24 Emma Christensen first came in contact with Dr. Sadler in
25 the -- sometime in the '20s, and this would be -- you know, the
00484 { 2:52:10pm}
01 reference of this going on from 1911 to 1929 would imply that
02 there was a long period of time prior to that that she wasn't
03 around. So, that would be my only comment on it.
04 Q. Okay. Let me show you --
05 MR. HILL: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
06 THE COURT: Sure.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have the exhibit number, please?
08 MR. HILL: Oh, I'm sorry. It's Michael Foundation
09 exhibit 102.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection.
11 THE COURT: Be admitted. What's the number?
12 MR. HILL: Michael Foundation 102.
13 Can you call it up? Can you blow it up? Third paragraph
14 down.
15 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Do you recognize this to be a letter from
16 Emma Christensen to Julia Fenderson in 1964?
17 A. Well, it's not my letter but it's my belief that's what it
18 is.
19 Q. Yeah. I mean, those are the names that are on the letter;
20 correct?
21 A. I don't actually see Emma Christensen's name on here, but
22 from the context I don't see how it could be from anyone else.
23 Q. Okay. And in that letter, it states, "I did not take down
24 any of the Urantia papers in shorthand. The papers came in
25 through the subject's handwriting and I copied them."
00485 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Then dropping down to the last sentence of the paragraph,
02 it says, "I did use my shorthand a good deal but not for the
03 papers as we have them in book form today."
04 So, taking that letter and putting it in the context of
05 what we just looked at in Dr. Sadler's appendix to The Mind of
06 Mischief, we'd have to conclude that there were other notes
07 that were being taken down other than the papers as we have
08 them in the book; correct?
09 A. Yes, but I thought of another piece of evidence here, if I
10 could be permitted to amend my answer about Emma Christensen
11 before that just came into my mind.
12 Q. Do you have it by number so that I can get to it quickly
13 if I want to ask you questions about it?
14 A. No. Well, I can tell you what it is.
15 Q. Okay. Tell me briefly.
16 A. Well, it's a fairly fascinating thing. It was an
17 interrogatory in the Burton case that Urantia Foundation was
18 asked to name who the subject was by Mr. Burton in this case,
19 and Urantia Foundation said no, that they had taken an oath not
20 to do so and didn't want to do that. And then Mr. Burton
21 continued with it and the judge finally gave an order saying,
22 "You might have taken an oath but it's not binding on this
23 court, and so it's relevant to the case. Reveal who the
24 patient is." And then there was a motion to reconsider. And
25 in the motion to reconsider, The Urantia Foundation said that
00486 { 2:52:10pm}
01 the only person alive who was active in The Urantia Foundation
02 at that time was Emma Christensen and she did not know, of her
03 own knowledge, who the contact personality was.
04 Q. That just means she didn't know a name to identify;
05 correct?
06 A. Well, that doesn't seem very likely or possible to me. If
07 she was there taking stenography for 250 sessions or however
08 many, I think surely she would know the man's name.
09 Q. Didn't she say that Dr. Sadler had told her the man's name
10 but that she didn't know the name from personal knowledge?
11 A. I thought the word was "identity," that she didn't know
12 the identity of the person.
13 Q. That wouldn't be the same as not knowing the name?
14 A. Wouldn't to me.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. So, if that's true --
17 Q. There is no -- there's no --
18 A. Pardon me. It's your question.
19 Q. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that.
20 Do you have any evidence that refutes the proposition that
21 for a number of years as these papers were coming in, they were
22 being studied by The Contact Commission and The Forum?
23 A. No. I think that's pretty clear.
24 Q. Okay. As to the fact of questions being asked by Forum
25 members and Contact Commissioners, do you have any evidence to
00487 { 2:52:10pm}
01 refute the proposition that there were questions submitted by
02 Forum members that were later arranged and asked by contact
03 commissioners of the subject?
04 A. It's very clear the questions were asked by members of The
05 Forum.
06 Q. Okay. And I thought I understood you to testify this
07 morning that you thought that this was a book written like any
08 other book. Did I hear you make that statement?
09 A. You did.
10 Q. Okay. What do you base that on?
11 A. There was a man who wrote out a book. He wrote it out in
12 his own handwriting. Nobody saw him write it. And somebody
13 copied it over, typed it out, and it was published. And I
14 think part of that same explanation that I gave this morning
15 said it was my deep belief that this man was inspired to do so,
16 and that doesn't take away from the fact that it was a book
17 written by a person.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. In my mind, that's what I meant.
20 Q. Okay. But you're not telling the jury -- certainly you're
21 not telling the jury that this --
22 MR. HILL: Judge, may I draw on the flip chart?
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Is that question withdrawn?
25 MR. HILL: Yes.
00488 { 2:52:10pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I move so I can --
03 THE COURT: You can. You cannot get in the jury box
04 with the jury, counsel.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: There's a line, Judge. I won't do
06 that.
07 MR. HILL: I'm sorry. I'll move this back a little
08 bit so you can see.
09 Q. (BY MR. HILL) You're not asking the jury to believe that
10 every -- that the garden-variety process of producing a work
11 that's 2000 pages long, assuming there are others, is through
12 this process of questions and answers going back and forth for
13 a number of years, are you?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. I am denying that.
17 Q. You're denying that -- You're denying that that ever
18 happened?
19 A. No, I'm not denying that ever happened. I'm denying the
20 process part of it.
21 Q. Okay. Okay.
22 MR. HILL: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
23 This is Michael Foundation 134.
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
25 No objection, Judge.
00489 { 2:52:10pm}
01 MR. HILL: We'll tender Michael Foundation 134.
02 THE COURT: It's admitted.
03 MR. HILL: Thank you, Judge.
04 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Will you identify Michael Foundation
05 exhibit 134.
06 A. This is a paper written by Dr. Sadler titled,
07 "Consideration of Some Criticisms of The Urantia Book."
08 Q. And will you turn to page 20. Directing your attention to
09 the final paragraph on the page. Here Dr. Sadler writes, "At
10 least, but not least, the technique of receiving The Urantia
11 Book in answer to questions was an entirely new and unique
12 method of imparting information on the part of superhuman
13 intelligences. The very book itself is original in origin and
14 unique in impartation."
15 Accepting your proposition as true, that this was not
16 superhuman intelligence flowing through an unconscious,
17 completely unaware individual, but was, instead, divinely
18 inspired, you take issue with the proposition that there was
19 still a question-and-answer process going on over these many
20 years?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Oh, you don't? You don't take issue with that part of the
23 process anyway? I'm sorry. I think I may have misunderstood
24 your previous answer.
25 A. Well, I can tell you what I thought you asked. But as to
00490 { 2:52:10pm}
01 the question you just asked, that's my answer.
02 Q. So no debating the fact that there was a question-and-
03 answer process?
04 A. No, no.
05 Q. Okay. Do you have -- Have you seen in the documents that
06 have been produced in this case the early copyright letters?
07 A. Yes, I have.
08 Q. And do you have any reason to doubt that in at least as
09 early as 1932 one or more of the contact commissioners began to
10 write letters inquiring about how to go about copyrighting
11 something that they were working on, to leave it generally?
12 A. No, I don't.
13 MR. HILL: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
14 THE COURT: Sure.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have an exhibit number, please?
16 MR. HILL: 133, Michael Foundation.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection.
18 THE COURT: Be admitted.
19 MR. HILL: Thank you, Judge.
20 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Yesterday, we saw a history of the Urantia
21 movement document on this screen, Mr. McMullan. Do you recall
22 that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Do you recall the page on that document that said that
25 some of the first money to come in to help defray the cost of
00491 { 2:52:10pm}
01 the first publishing of The Urantia Book was received from the
02 arctic explorer, Hubert Wilkins?
03 A. Yes, I do.
04 Q. Do you believe that Michael Foundation exhibit 134 is a
05 letter from Sir Hubert Wilkins?
06 A. Yes, I do.
07 Q. Okay. And it appears that this letter was removed from
08 archived files at Ohio State University?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it's dated November 1, 1955?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. HILL: Can you scroll down a little bit more?
14 Can you highlight the paragraph that starts with, "The mass of
15 information."
16 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Do you believe that Hubert Wilkins was a
17 Forum member?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Okay. He writes, "The mass of information of the book is
20 at first bewildering. To most of us, it came piece by piece
21 and was not so overwhelming."
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. That would suggest, wouldn't it, that the papers were, at
25 least insofar as Mr. Wilkins was seeing them, that the papers
00492 { 2:52:10pm}
01 were coming piece by piece?
02 A. That would be consistent with the story of the way the
03 first three parts were done that was in your exhibit yesterday.
04 Q. Do you take issue with the proposition --
05 MR. HILL: I'm sorry, Bob. You can take that down.
06 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Do you take issue with the proposition that
07 Dr. Lena K. Sadler, Dr. William Sadler's wife, raised $20,000
08 by 1939 to help defray the cost of publication?
09 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Okay. You have seen that in the documents of The Urantia
11 Foundation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do you take issue with the proposition that in 1941
14 contact commissioner Wilfred Kellogg entered into a contract
15 with Donnelley & Sons to arrange for the laying down of the
16 text of the Urantia Papers on nickel printing plates?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And do you take issue with the proposition that Bill
19 Hales, the first president of Urantia Foundation, and other
20 former members of The Forum and contact commissioners donated
21 money towards the initial publication of The Urantia Book?
22 A. No problem with that at all.
23 Q. And you've seen the letters in Urantia Foundation's
24 business records to that effect, either soliciting or
25 indicating that money has been provided?
00493 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I didn't see the letters about that original money but I
02 certainly have no question that it happened.
03 Q. Okay. And do you -- you don't take any issue with the
04 proposition that Urantia Foundation was formed in 1950?
05 A. No.
06 Q. And you don't take issue with the proposition that after
07 it was formed, contact commissioner Wilfred Kellogg assigned
08 his contract for the printing plates over to Urantia
09 Foundation?
10 A. No problem at all.
11 Q. Okay. And you don't have any evidence, do you, that
12 anyone involved in this process was compelled to do something
13 against his or her will?
14 A. Well, you know, it's very interesting. In this letter, it
15 would indicate that the patient was not aware of what was
16 happening. It's the paragraph above the one that you quoted
17 there. I could read what it says but it very definitely
18 implies that the man didn't know what was going on.
19 Q. But taking the facts as you view them, even if he was
20 unconscious in these sessions, he was conscious when he wrote
21 these papers; correct?
22 A. Well, I don't know -- the mind is a very deep thing, so
23 people can do things in their unconscious mind and it's still
24 coming out of their mind.
25 Q. Okay.
00494 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. They could be so -- if I -- you know, if someone painted a
02 painting in a trance, I don't know why they couldn't get a
03 copyright on the painting. So, in some way, saying it came out
04 of the man's mind whether he was in a trance or whether he
05 wasn't, to me it doesn't seem to make any difference.
06 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not there is any evidence
07 that Dr. Sadler intended to steal anything from this person?
08 A. I think there is.
09 Q. What evidence is that?
10 A. First of all, there's the fact he didn't get a written
11 assignment, and he's talking to these copyright people here,
12 and what's the first question the copyright lawyers are going
13 to ask? "If you didn't write the book, where's your
14 assignment?"
15 Q. Well, wait a second. You've read the opinion in the
16 Burton case; correct?
17 A. I have.
18 Q. And in the Burton case, isn't the holding of that case
19 that no written assignment was required?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And so you're basing an allegation of theft against a dead
22 professional who can't come into court to defend himself on the
23 fact that there may have been some handshake or implicit
24 agreement as opposed to a formal written document?
25 A. Well, that's just one point. There are four or five
00495 { 2:52:10pm}
01 things that, tied together, make the transaction extremely
02 suspicious, in my opinion.
03 Q. Okay. Do you have any evidence that the subject was
04 residing at 533 Diversey Parkway?
05 A. No. There's some evidence that he wasn't.
06 Q. Okay. Do you have any evidence that the subject attended
07 the contact sessions by something other than voluntary means?
08 A. If Emma Christensen did not know who the contact
09 personality was of her own knowledge, it raises a question of
10 whether he was present at all. It appears to me that
11 Dr. Sadler got these papers from the patient somehow and even
12 his fellow contact commissioner didn't even know the identity
13 of the person. That's what was sworn to by Urantia Foundation.
14 Q. Do you have any evidence that Dr. Sadler was a man of
15 dishonest character?
16 A. I didn't know Dr. Sadler.
17 Q. Yes. But have you seen any evidence? You've reviewed all
18 these documents --
19 A. Well, I think that the evidence together with things we
20 haven't talked about in this case make it very suspicious on
21 how this thing came about in the first place.
22 Q. Any evidence -- Any extrinsic evidence, any evidence
23 outside of this process that you're aware of that suggests that
24 Dr. Sadler was a man of low moral character or a cheat?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to object to the form, Your
00496 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Honor. What is the process we're talking about?
02 THE COURT: Restate your question, counselor. I
03 wasn't able to follow your question.
04 MR. HILL: Sure.
05 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Do you have any evidence to suggest, other
06 than what you've just said regarding the particular affairs
07 between Dr. Sadler and the subject, that Dr. Sadler was a --
08 A. Yes, I do.
09 Q. -- was a cheat?
10 And what is that evidence?
11 A. He burned the patient's manuscript. There's simply no
12 earthly reason to burn a person's manuscript.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I have never heard of that being done before.
15 Q. And your conclusion from the fact that the manuscripts
16 were destroyed is that there must have been something
17 illegitimate about the process?
18 A. Combined with the fact that he waited 20 years to publish
19 it. He was called "the patient" by your side of things in
20 here. He was Dr. Sadler's patient. He's the patient of a
21 psychiatrist. He has that relationship. The psychiatrist has
22 no assignment from him, no written assignment, his papers are
23 burned, and secrecy is imposed on everybody concerned so that
24 the patient can't find out what's happening, and 20 years
25 passes before Dr. Sadler publishes these papers. I think
00497 { 2:52:10pm}
01 that's highly suspicious when you take it as a group.
02 Q. Okay. Let's talk about the nature of the work for a few
03 minutes.
04 The book does have a great deal of information, factual
05 information, in it, does it not?
06 A. It does.
07 Q. Okay. And you yourself have said in the inset page to
08 your Index to The Urantia Book, that The Urantia Book is a
09 unique repository of information ranging from all kinds of
10 different subjects. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. You make that statement.
13 And you don't dispute the fact that there are numerous
14 topics covered in The Urantia Book?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. Okay. And does your belief that it is somehow inspired by
17 God affect at all your view of the book as a unified work?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Does not? Okay.
20 Do you think that Urantia Foundation's view, as reflected
21 in many of the letters and speeches that have been put up
22 previously in this case, do you think that their view of the
23 work is impacted at all by the perception that it is a
24 revelation?
25 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I will object as --
00498 { 2:52:10pm}
01 THE COURT: Sustained.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: -- to what he thinks.
03 MR. HILL: Okay.
04 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Is it possible -- that's okay. I'll
05 withdraw that question.
06 You've described Jesus - A New Revelation as a -- or the
07 Jesus papers in The Urantia Book from which the Jesus - A New
08 Revelation work is taken as a work within a work; correct?
09 A. To a large extent. Not entirely.
10 Q. Okay. Would you turn to exhibit 36 in the black binders.
11 There's two just behind you there.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection.
13 THE COURT: Be admitted.
14 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I need the number.
15 MR. HILL: UF-36.
16 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
17 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Are you there?
18 A. I am here.
19 Q. Go ahead and read the -- first of all, this was produced
20 by you in discovery to Urantia Foundation. Do you know what it
21 is?
22 A. Yes. I didn't write it but I know what it is.
23 Q. Okay. And I believe when I asked you about it earlier,
24 you said that there was nothing in the contents of the document
25 that you disagreed with?
00499 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I don't recall. I haven't read it for months and months
02 but I'll take it that if I said that before, that must be --
03 that would be my same answer now.
04 Q. Okay. Do you agree with the first statement, "That Jesus
05 - A New Revelation is nothing less than a comprehensive
06 biography of Jesus, his entire life is covered, his childhood,
07 his adolescence, his years of preparation and his public
08 ministry up through the events of his crucifixion, resurrection
09 and ascension"?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. That sounds like a work in and of itself; would you agree?
12 A. Well, I described earlier how certain things in part IV
13 can only be understood in the context of Michael and Nebadon
14 and Melchizedek and thought adjusters and things. Still, there
15 are lines and lines within it tying back to The Urantia Book of
16 things that simply don't make sense without it. So -- but it's
17 definitely a work.
18 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off.
19 In Jesus - A New Revelation, in the inset preface page,
20 don't you write, "The life of Jesus stands alone"?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And --
23 A. I think I did. May I get the book?
24 Q. Oh, absolutely. I think the way the statement reads is to
25 the effect that while the life of Jesus stands alone, it's
00500 { 2:52:10pm}
01 better appreciated in the full context of The Urantia Book.
02 A. That's correct. That's my view.
03 Q. Summary?
04 Now, you've also communicated to others, have you not,
05 that you believe, with very few exceptions, The Urantia Book
06 does, in fact, stand -- or flows quite well as a separate
07 work. Do you recall that testim- -- do you recall having made
08 those statements?
09 A. You mean part IV, is that what you meant?
10 Q. Yes.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may we start over with the
12 question, please?
13 THE COURT: Please.
14 MR. HILL: Yeah, let me just ask a better question.
15 Q. (BY MR. HILL) You've stated before on occasion that other
16 than paper 120 in part IV, which you left out of Jesus - A New
17 Revelation, you believe that from paper 121 through 196, the
18 part that is in Jesus - A New Revelation, that tells -- that
19 flows quite well as a separate work.
20 A. I believe it does.
21 Q. Yes.
22 There are a number of human sources that account for some
23 of the subject matter in The Urantia Book; isn't that true?
24 A. That appears to be the case.
25 Q. Yes. In fact, doesn't The Urantia Book itself even say in
00501 { 2:52:10pm}
01 places in the text that it is -- it is derived, at least in
02 part, from reference to 2000 human sources and 1000 human
03 concepts?
04 A. Yes, it does.
05 Q. Okay. And you've seen, have you not, some comparisons
06 between certain selections in The Urantia Book and certain
07 works from the early 1900s?
08 A. I've seen a number of those.
09 Q. Yes, you have. And tell the jury just a couple of those
10 sources, please.
11 A. One of them is a man named Henry Weyman who wrote a number
12 of books about religion. And the material from certain parts
13 in The Urantia Book is -- it's not exactly the same but it's so
14 close that you'd have to say it was a plagiarization. That
15 would be the word you would use.
16 Q. An abridgement, maybe?
17 A. People that love The Urantia Book wouldn't like to use
18 that word but that's kind of what it would amount to. And
19 there are a number of people that have studied it that have
20 identified 70 or 80 different works, and when you look at
21 certain parts of The Urantia Book you can see a clear
22 correspondence between that other work and -- which the patient
23 might have had access to -- and the material in The Urantia
24 Book.
25 Q. And you've looked at paper 160 in the book, which is the
00502 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Rodan paper; correct?
02 A. I don't think I've been through that correspondence but
03 I'm aware that's one that has heavy correspondence to. I think
04 that's the Wyman book.
05 A. Yes. Issues of Life.
06 But paper 160 also has a significant amount of quoting
07 from the New Testament, does it not?
08 A. I would need to look at paper 160 to be able to answer
09 that question.
10 Q. Sure. Do you have the hard back or soft-backed Urantia
11 Book up there?
12 MR. HILL: Could I have a moment, Your Honor?
13 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Sorry. It's a big book.
14 Look at page 1776, if you're not already there. This is
15 the Rodan paper that we've been referring to, paper 160?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. And you've already testified that you've seen or you've
18 heard that there's a correlation between certain portions of
19 this paper and the Issues of Life book by Henry Wyman?
20 A. I remember that it's Wyman or Weyman but I don't recall
21 the name of the book. I've never gone -- I've never done this
22 exercise --
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. -- really to where I was paying much attention to it.
25 Q. Well, take a look at page 1776. At the bottom, on section
00503 { 2:52:10pm}
01 IV, The Enhanced Defense, do you see the quote four lines down,
02 "Happy are they who mourn," in quotation marks?
03 A. Yes, I do.
04 Q. You recognize that from the beatitudes?
05 A. Yes, I do.
06 Q. Looking on the next page over on page 1777, it says,
07 "Peace on earth and good will among men."
08 A. Yes, I see that.
09 Q. You recognize that from Luke, the book of Luke?
10 A. I recognize that from the times of Jesus' birth. Is it in
11 Luke?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. I believe it is, yes.
14 Q. Luke 2:14.
15 And dropping down to the Lures of Maturity section, three
16 lines down from that, you see the quote, "Man cannot live by
17 bread alone"?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that's, of course, Matthew 4 -- Luke 4:4.
20 Do you recognize that to be a quote from the New
21 Testament?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. So is it possible, based on some of the evidence that
24 we're talking about here and accepting your proposition as
25 true, that what happened is the subject fielded these questions
00504 { 2:52:10pm}
01 in these sessions and then went off looking for the best ways
02 to answer the questions, borrowing from human sources all along
03 the way and then coming back with a set of answers?
04 A. I'd have to address your question in parts. The session
05 thing is open to question because Emma Christensen said she
06 didn't know who the -- didn't know the identity of the subject,
07 and so it could be that Dr. Sadler somehow took these questions
08 and gave them to his patient. We don't know. But it's kind
09 of -- it's hard to understand.
10 Q. Okay. But --
11 A. But if we can go --
12 Q. -- would you concede it's possible?
13 A. -- to the second part of your question that the patient
14 wrote it based on drawing resources, is that what you're
15 saying?
16 Q. Well, I'm asking: Do you concede that it's at least a
17 possibility that what happened here, taking your proposition as
18 true, that this person was writing from inspiration and was
19 cognizant of what he was doing, that he understood the
20 questions when they were asked and went about the task of
21 trying to marshal the best facts and information that he could
22 from other human sources and then combined them in a unique way
23 and present them as answers to the questions?
24 A. I agree with all of that except that the role of the
25 questions is really a little unclear to me. But everything
00505 { 2:52:10pm}
01 else, I think, it's quite possible.
02 Q. Okay. It would be a fantastic coincidence, would it not,
03 if Dr. Sadler or the members of The Contact Commission and
04 Forum just happened to keep stumbling onto papers that were
05 responsive to questions that they were posing. That would be
06 coincidental, wouldn't it?
07 A. Well, I'm not saying there weren't questions. I've
08 already said that. I'm just saying that --
09 Q. Well, were they answered?
10 A. -- how they --
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I don't believe he let him
12 finish his answer.
13 THE COURT: Let him finish.
14 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Go ahead.
15 A. The thing that's not clear is how do you -- what happens
16 after these questions are asked, because it's the answering of
17 the questions that's really the main thing, and there's a
18 structure here. It's just inconceivable to me that it would be
19 the result -- the pure result of questions. There was
20 something in the mind of the author that contributed to this
21 entire structure. And while the questions would have -- could
22 certainly, as the history of the Urantia movement said, it
23 could amplify things, and remove ambiguities was another thing,
24 that's very different from saying that these questions were the
25 source of the artistic and unified structure that we find in
00506 { 2:52:10pm}
01 The Urantia Book and especially in The Life of Jesus which it's
02 not clear there was any questions involved at all. It seems
03 that that thing came-- just plopped down. I don't see there's
04 any evidence that there were any questions on the whole
05 business about part IV, if it came as a unit.
06 Q. So you're not aware of any questions about Jesus?
07 A. I'm not aware of any questions about anything.
08 Q. Okay. And what I'm asking is: Is it plausible, and let's
09 set aside part IV for a second, let's talk about the first
10 three parts -- but is it plausible that the subject fielded
11 questions and went about the task of marshaling information
12 from other human sources, combining it in an original way and
13 then bringing a paper back that was responsive to the last
14 group of questions asked? Is that possible?
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to object
16 THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. We need to move
17 on, counselor.
18 MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
19 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Let's talk about the domain names for a
20 second.
21 You registered in 1997, did you not, UrantiaBook.com,
22 TheUrantiaBook.org and Urantian.org?
23 A. I believe that was the year. Michael Foundation did two
24 of them and I did one of them.
25 Q. Yes. And one of those domains, TheUrantiaBook.org
00507 { 2:52:10pm}
01 registered by Michael Foundation, you permitted David Cantor to
02 use that domain and point it as a mirror on-line location for
03 The Fellowship's web site for a time; isn't that true?
04 A. Yes, that's correct.
05 Q. Okay. And when did that cease or is it still going on?
06 A. I'm not sure when it ceased but about -- I thought it had
07 ceased a long time ago and I called him about two or three
08 weeks ago just to say, "David, you know, you do have that thing
09 off, don't you?" And he said, "Well, it's complicated."
10 Anyway, at some point not too long ago, it was removed so
11 that it's completely gone now, but it was not gone as early as
12 I thought it was or that I intended it to be.
13 Q. Well, I mean, you voluntarily permitted Mr. Cantor to use
14 that domain name, did you not, as The Fellowship's web site?
15 A. It was prior to me knowing anybody ever cared about the
16 thing.
17 Q. Okay. But once you found out that somebody did care about
18 it --
19 A. Then I talked to David Cantor and asked him to stop it,
20 and apparently he didn't do so entirely. He did something. I
21 really don't understand the mechanism on how these things
22 worked. When I checked with him recently, there was still some
23 traces of it or something that he got rid of that now are gone.
24 Q. Who did you register the domains through? Network
25 Solutions?
00508 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I think so.
02 Q. Network Solutions?
03 A. Well, I think it was.
04 Q. Okay.
05 A. I think at the time that was the only way you could
06 register names.
07 Q. I registered a couple a few years ago myself through
08 Network Solutions. In fact, recently I got a little notice
09 from them telling me that if I didn't pay them some money, they
10 were going to take my registrations and sell them to somebody
11 else. Have you gotten those kinds of letters --
12 A. I have.
13 Q. -- over the last four years?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When you've gotten those letters with respect to these
16 three domain names, what have you done? Have you let them go
17 or renewed them?
18 A. No, I renewed them.
19 Q. You did renew them. When was the last time you renewed
20 one of these domains?
21 A. I have -- as far as I know, I renewed all of them when I
22 got the notices.
23 Q. Okay. Did you get some notices in May of this year?
24 A. I'm not sure.
25 Q. Okay. Well, is there --
00509 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. But I'll stipulate I've renewed them when I got them,
02 whenever it was.
03 Q. Okay. And if you registered them in May of 1997, do you
04 know how long Network Solutions gives you the domain before
05 they threaten to take it back unless you pay them some more
06 money?
07 A. No, I don't.
08 Q. Okay. Is it more than a year?
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me. May I have clarification?
10 More than a year? I didn't get the context.
11 THE COURT: Repeat your question, counselor.
12 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Is it more than a year between the time
13 that Network Solutions comes back and --
14 A. Uh-huh. It's my impression --
15 Q. -- asks you to ante up?
16 A. -- that it depends how much you pay them in the first
17 place.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I think you can buy for, you know, a year or two years or
20 three years or something. Really, I don't know.
21 Q. How long did you buy the domains for back in '97?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Don't know if it was a year, five years?
24 A. I'm sorry. I just don't know.
25 Q. Okay. Is it conceivable that in the last two years you've
00510 { 2:52:10pm}
01 paid Network Solutions in order to keep one or more of these
02 domain names?
03 A. Yes, it is.
04 Q. Is it likely?
05 A. Probably, yeah, I would say.
06 Q. Likely with respect to all three of them?
07 A. I would say it's likely.
08 Q. Okay. And you've done that voluntarily, either on your
09 own behalf or on behalf of Michael Foundation, depending on --
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. And have you done that during this litigation?
12 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me. Are we talking about the
13 pendency of this litigation?
14 MR. HILL: Yes.
15 A. I think -- well, I've already said I'm not sure but I know
16 that when some things -- I have a number of domain names apart
17 from these, the ones that are at issue here because I just
18 enjoyed fooling around with them back when things started, so
19 I've renewed them. And I've probably renewed the ones at
20 question within the pendency of this litigation.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. But I don't have a -- you know, I'm not positive on it.
23 Q. I thought I understood your earlier testimony to be that
24 the Church of Christ Michael sort of ceased to exist after
25 1996; is that correct?
00511 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. Well, there's a physical structure just right up the
02 street here that was the physical church at 1200 North
03 Robinson, and that was the church and that no longer is in
04 the -- you know, that's not going any longer.
05 The Church of Christ Michael actually was something that
06 the pastor, Rob Crickett, who came over here, had, and he has
07 continued to use the Church of Christ Michael as a vehicle for
08 his ministry in Australia.
09 Q. Okay.
10 A. And sometimes I think maybe in the United States but I've
11 never had any --
12 Q. Well, I'm just trying to get more to the point.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I don't believe the witness
14 had finished his answer.
15 THE COURT: Don't interrupt the witness, counselor.
16 MR. HILL: I'm sorry. I thought you were done.
17 THE WITNESS: I'm through. You were right.
18 MR. HILL: Thank you.
19 Q. (BY MR. HILL) When did you personally perceive that you
20 were out of the church creation business, for lack of a more
21 articulate expression?
22 A. Well, I'm not sure of the exact -- I get these years a
23 little mixed up. When Mr. Crickett left, then I viewed that I
24 had done what I could to get a local Urantia church going and
25 that that just obviously wasn't my calling to do that. Then as
00512 { 2:52:10pm}
01 far as a physical church with a pastor and a congregation and
02 Sunday schools and things like that, and I haven't made any
03 efforts in that direction since.
04 Q. Okay. Can you turn back -- your counsel showed you
05 Michael Foundation exhibit 92. Do you still have a copy up
06 there with you?
07 MR. HILL: Your Honor, may I approach? I have a
08 copy.
09 THE COURT: Sure.
10 THE WITNESS: Pardon me for not asking, Your Honor.
11 MR. HILL: Can you pull up Michael Foundation exhibit
12 92?
13 THE COURT: Is it already admitted?
14 MR. HILL: Yes.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. HILL: Can you bold the paragraph starting with,
17 "Nature of a composite work."
18 Q. (BY MR. HILL) This is a letter that was written on your
19 behalf to the trustees of Urantia Foundation by Mr. Plourde, I
20 believe?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And in this paragraph, Mr. Plourde says, "You refer in
23 your letter to the Maaherra case. Michael Foundation carefully
24 studied the evidence presented in that case before deciding to
25 publish Jesus - A New Revelation. An important issue to bear
00513 { 2:52:10pm}
01 in mind in determining the copyrightability of the material in
02 Jesus - A New Revelation is the nature of the copyright you
03 were left with as a result of the Ninth Circuit ruling. As you
04 know, the court found that you were the proprietor of a
05 composite work. By definition, the process of creating a
06 composite work presumes that the creator began with certain
07 building blocks consisting of original works by others. The
08 compiler of a composite work is not entitled, merely because he
09 compiled the composite work, to claim copyright as to the
10 original works by others, the building blocks with which the
11 compiler started."
12 Let's talk for a second about your -- is that consistent
13 with your understanding of --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor -- I'm sorry. Did you
15 finish?
16 MR. HILL: Yes.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: I'm going to object to the question,
18 Your Honor. He's asking him if he has this legal understanding
19 of what all this is.
20 THE COURT: He asked him if it was consistent with it
21 and he can answer that, if he can.
22 A. I can answer it to a certain extent. I testified that my
23 belief at the time this was written was that the part IV had
24 come as a complete unit and it's been substantiated by
25 Mr. Keeler's testimony. So, in my view, that would be, as far
00514 { 2:52:10pm}
01 as what's in this book, it would be a unit which would be a
02 building block, as you can say, to the entire book. So, that
03 paragraph was written with respect to the material that is in
04 this book, to the best of my understanding.
05 Q. (BY MR. HILL) And it was also written based upon the
06 premise that the book was a revelation, which is what you
07 contended throughout the large part of the early part of this
08 case; isn't that true?
09 A. That's what I believed at the time.
10 Q. At the time that --
11 A. I don't know what a revelation really is, so maybe I still
12 believe that.
13 Q. Okay. Do you recall writing a letter to Martin Myers at
14 Urantia Foundation in 1989 telling him that you have no
15 intention of causing Urantia Foundation any copyright problems
16 whatsoever?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Okay. And that letter, was that written before or after
19 the breakup between Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood?
20 A. My recollection is that it was written just before and it
21 was in conjunction with his request for me to sign that
22 agreement on the keyword index.
23 Q. And that's the agreement that we looked at this morning?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Obviously something regarding the copyright has changed in
00515 { 2:52:10pm}
01 your mind.
02 Do you take any responsibility for the fact that we're
03 here and we've reached this point in this case?
04 A. No.
05 Q. You take no responsibility?
06 A. Well, I take responsibility for writing this book. I
07 didn't write it -- I'm sorry. I didn't -- I meant to say for
08 publishing this book. It was not by accident that the last 76
09 papers of The Urantia Book are in here. So, in that sense, I
10 knew that -- I knew exactly what I was doing. Now, in terms
11 of -- did you mean the equity of why we're here? Is that what
12 you're talking about?
13 Q. I'm talking about how we've made it this far.
14 A. Well, we've made it this far because you people believe
15 you have a copyright in this book and I don't, and so we have a
16 difference of opinion.
17 Q. Okay. And you take no responsibility for the fact that
18 this litigation has advanced to the stage that it has; true?
19 A. I'm not permitted to say certain things about --
20 Q. Okay. Okay.
21 A. -- that.
22 Q. That's fine.
23 A. And I don't know --
24 THE WITNESS: Judge, I don't know how to answer the
25 question without --
00516 { 2:52:10pm}
01 MR. HILL: That's okay.
02 I don't have anything else, Judge.
03 THE COURT: Next question?
04 MR. HILL: I don't have any other questions. Thank
05 you.
06 THE COURT: Redirect, if any?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: May I briefly approach the bench?
08 THE COURT: Sure.
09 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF
10 HEARING OF THE JURY:)
11 THE COURT: The answer is still no. Is that what you
12 want to talk about?
13 MR. ABOWITZ: I have it written down here.
14 THE COURT: I don't think so.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I would like the record to show that.
16 THE COURT: Sure.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: I would like the record to reflect that
18 counsel for Urantia Foundation's last question opened the door
19 to the material that the Court has excluded from evidence in
20 this case on a motion in limine. I believe the question
21 directly went to soliciting that information. The jury is now
22 left with a view by inference that this lawsuit and why we're
23 here is due to the reluctance of this witness, Mr. McMullan,
24 who is a party in this case, to be reasonable about these
25 matters.
00517 { 2:52:10pm}
01 THE COURT: Your objection is still -- and for that
02 reason, you want to offer into evidence of --
03 MR. ABOWITZ: The compromise.
04 THE COURT: And that motion will be denied.
05 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
06 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
07 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
08 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
09 Q. Mr. McMullan, there's been conversation about evidence
10 that you saw in this case and that you reviewed that impacted
11 your view of certain matters that we've talked about, and you
12 talked about the King case. And I'd like, please --
13 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you pull up exhibit 126, please,
14 which is already admitted into evidence.
15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I don't have it.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: It's not there?
17 Let me see if I can do this.
18 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you see that?
19 A. It needs to be shrunk a little bit.
20 Q. Wrong way.
21 A. Other way.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: Can everybody see that?
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Let me draw your attention to the
24 language beginning with the word "Thus." Would you read that
25 first sentence, please.
00518 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. "Thus, the person who performed the physical act of
02 writing the manuscript of The Urantia Book, for purposes of the
03 copyright law, is the author and owner of the common law
04 copyright therein, and had right to, and did" -- the word is
05 cut off but I presume it says, "transfer" --
06 Q. Is that better?
07 A. Well, now it's cut off on the other side.
08 Q. Well, I'll switch it back and forth here.
09 A. -- "transfer that common law copyright to Dr. Sadler who
10 transferred it to Foundation."
11 Q. Okay. Is that one of the things that you relied upon?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And does that --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 92, please.
15 Can you see that?
16 MR. PLOURDE: May I move this chart board?
17 THE COURT: Sure.
18 A. Mr. Abowitz, I mistook your question. I did not have
19 those particular documents at the time this letter was written,
20 if that's what you mean. I rely on them --
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Okay. When did you have these Burton
22 King documents?
23 A. I didn't -- we didn't get those until sometime in maybe
24 March of this year.
25 Q. All right. Well, my question was: You had a view at the
00519 { 2:52:10pm}
01 time this letter was written --
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you scroll it up so we can get the
03 date?
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) -- November 5th, 1999, your views that
05 you held on that date changed sometime in the early part of the
06 year 2000?
07 A. Yes, they did.
08 Q. Based on all this other information that you got --
09 A. That's correct.
10 Q. -- through the course of the case?
11 The information solicited in this letter by your lawyer,
12 Mr. Plourde, does it have anything to do or is it affected by
13 the change in your views?
14 A. Well, it would have been phrased a little differently but
15 the point would be exactly the same.
16 Q. The point being?
17 A. The point being that there's no valid copyright to the
18 material that's in this book, in Jesus - A New Revelation,
19 which was the subject of that letter. The reason is that they
20 didn't do anything. In that letter, the presumption was that
21 there were, according to my belief at the time, that it was
22 written -- delivered as a unit to Urantia Foundation and there
23 were no changes, no editing, no rearranging, no nothing. So if
24 it's a compilation copyright, there's nothing there to
25 protect. So it's basically the same thing except that the
00520 { 2:52:10pm}
01 patient wrote it, you know, instead of the spiritual beings. I
02 think the underlying point is really the same, that there's
03 no -- there's nothing that Urantia Foundation did in compiling
04 that that would entitle them to a copyright.
05 Q. Did you make any money publishing Jesus - A New
06 Revelation?
07 A. Heavens no.
08 Q. Did Michael Foundation?
09 A. No.
10 Q. Did anybody?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Now, this letter that you were shown that you wrote, The
13 Foundation, I believe it's --
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you help me out, counsel? 35, is
15 that it?
16 MR. HILL: That he wrote?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: Yeah.
18 MR. HILL: That's one.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: May I see it, please?
20 MR. PLOURDE: We've got it.
21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What was the purpose of this letter?
22 A. The purpose of that letter was to -- well, -- that letter
23 was written to set forth sort of the spiritual reasons why it
24 would be improper for a group that says they believe in Jesus
25 and the teachings of this book to prevent other people from
00521 { 2:52:10pm}
01 getting the word out.
02 Q. Now, is this couched in the terms of the law that the
03 Court is going to give the jury?
04 A. No, no. That letter has the spiritual reasons about, you
05 know, let's look at what Jesus said and let's try to do what he
06 said.
07 Q. And your statements in there that you're going to do
08 everything within your spiritual power to see an end result,
09 does it include violating any order of this court or any other
10 court?
11 A. Absolutely not.
12 Q. All right. Now, you indicated that the Jesus papers, the
13 work of Jesus included in the Jesus - A New Revelation flows as
14 a work. What do you mean by that?
15 A. I mean that a person with the use of the index in the back
16 that helps with the terms that aren't defined, a person can
17 read this book and really get a lot out of it. If I hadn't
18 believed that, I never would have had it printed.
19 Q. And does that book lead a reader reasonably into the next
20 step, which would be to read The Urantia Book?
21 A. I think that's a reasonable conclusion for people. And if
22 they don't, then they're still better off. So, either way, if
23 you believe that this material has value, then they're better
24 having this than nothing; and then if they read the whole
25 Urantia Book, that's their choice.
00522 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. There was --
02 A. It's designed to elicit that response.
03 Q. There was a discussion about The Urantia Foundation
04 refusing your attribution of them. Do you still refer to them
05 in that book?
06 A. No. I refer to The Urantia Book though.
07 Q. All right.
08 A. They were the only -- are the only people that are
09 publishing The Urantia Book. So if people want to buy The
10 Urantia Book, they're going to find The Urantia Foundation.
11 Q. Could you have published that book without saying anything
12 about The Urantia Book?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Would you have?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Well, let's briefly talk about the questions.
19 What is your position about the subject of the questions
20 that came up directed to the patient/contact person?
21 A. Well, from the evidence it seems clear that The Forum
22 group was presented with these papers. The papers -- the
23 patient wrote the papers. The patient wrote the papers.
24 That's obvious. It also seems pretty reasonable that they came
25 in installments. He wrote them a paper or a chapter at a time
00523 { 2:52:10pm}
01 or two at a time or whatever. In the case of this book, they
02 were written all at the same time. But they did not come all
03 at the same time. Dr. Sadler had a group called The Forum. He
04 asked this group to formulate questions concerning the material
05 that was read. And then it goes into mystery. So, there's not
06 any -- we ask a lot of questions in the course of depositions
07 and I've read other -- the depositions in the Maaherra case as
08 well and nobody seems to be able to make a correspondence
09 between a question that was asked and an answer that was
10 given. Nobody knows who asked the question, the order in which
11 the questions were asked, but there seems to be agreement that
12 they had some impact but there's just no way to say exactly
13 what it is.
14 So, that's all I know.
15 Q. You indicated in response to counsel's questioning about
16 whether or not Dr. Sadler had done something that was improper,
17 that you thought four or five things were suspicious. Could
18 you outline those for us, specify those for us, please.
19 A. Well, in the letter, which was shown up on the screen
20 there, he knocked out the part directly above it that would
21 have suggested what it was talking about in the Sir Hubert
22 Wilkins letter.
23 Q. And what is that letter, please?
24 A. Plaintiff's 133.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have that, please? We may not
00524 { 2:52:10pm}
01 have it.
02 Sir, may I trouble you for that so we don't hold up the
03 jury?
04 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) What portion of this letter are --
05 A. The paragraph, "At present."
06 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you highlight that, please.
07 Can you read that?
08 THE WITNESS: Yes.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: Can you extract that out of there,
10 please.
11 A. "At present, we are not telling" -- did you want me to
12 read that?
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Yes, please.
14 A. "At present, we are not telling many of the recipients of
15 the manner in which the information was received but I can tell
16 you for your own information that the text of the papers were
17 spoken by the revelators through a man in his sleep and who to
18 this day has no idea that he was the medium. Learning that
19 this man was talking in his sleep, it was arranged to have a
20 stenographer record the statements and soon it was possible for
21 those concerned not only to listen and record, but to also talk
22 with the revelators as you and I might talk."
23 Now, a part of that is inconsistent with everything else.
24 You know, the part about the -- well, maybe it's not. They're
25 saying that part of it came verbally, but all the evidence is
00525 { 2:52:10pm}
01 that what were the papers actually came written, but the thing
02 that's intriguing about this letter is that it says, "The man
03 to this day has no idea he was the medium." I don't know. I
04 mean, you know, you wonder, you have a psychiatrist and you
05 have a patient and you just wonder what this relationship is.
06 What was going on? I think -- I would think a medical
07 professional would have a duty toward the -- toward his patient
08 which would be a very high duty, a fiduciary duty.
09 And here, he took what the patient wrote, he didn't pay
10 anything, he never revealed the name. When he got his
11 manuscript, after they typed it out, he burned the papers. He
12 swore everybody to secrecy that was involved in the process on
13 his end, and then he starts a foundation and they basically
14 give it to themselves. The people that are on this Contact
15 Commission, who are not the patient, end up signing this thing
16 over, but it's like the people that -- you know, it's like me
17 signing over your car to somebody else; I don't have the right
18 to sign it over because I didn't write it, the patient wrote
19 it. Then they wait 20 years, you know, when there's not even
20 any editing involved. I just think when you take all that
21 together, and then when they register the copyright they don't
22 give any credit to the person who actually wrote it. They say
23 it's -- they say they wrote it themselves. I think, all in
24 all, it just doesn't smell good. It's not a plausible story to
25 me.
00526 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. And when did you first determine that?
02 A. Well, I've had occasion to think about this a great deal
03 in the course of this last few months, and the turning point in
04 this analysis for me was when I figured out for the first time
05 that this whole book was in the handwriting of one individual.
06 And, so, then I look at the other evidence and nobody knows
07 anything.
08 The patient -- there's nothing from the standpoint of the
09 patient. Everything you hear is from the standpoint of
10 Dr. Sadler and those associated with him, but there's
11 nothing -- in other words, from the group that stands to
12 benefit and control this revelation, there's absolutely nothing
13 from the standpoint of this patient, his family. I mean, we
14 truly don't even know if he was not institutionalized. You
15 know, they did things, they still do things like this.
16 How do we know that he knew that all this was going on?
17 The only way we -- all we know is that Dr. Sadler said it was
18 okay, but he's the one on the side that's getting the profit
19 from this thing. So, there's just simply no way to know. I
20 didn't know Dr. Sadler myself, but when you look at these --
21 these facts together to me paint an extremely suspicious story
22 of the origin of this book.
23 Q. Does that impact now your view or does it impact your view
24 of that book itself now, if the origins are questionable?
25 A. No. If somebody had stolen some beautiful concerto by
00527 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Bach or Bethoven, it wouldn't make the piece of music any less
02 beautiful.
03 Q. Without divulging what you were told not to divulge, you
04 were asked whether you have responsibility in this situation.
05 You indicated that your responsibility was you published Jesus
06 - A New Revelation. When you published that, did you
07 anticipate that you would get a lawsuit, be involved in a
08 lawsuit?
09 A. No, I did not.
10 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you. That's all I have, Your
11 Honor.
12 THE COURT: Take a recess?
13 MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Are you concluded with this witness or do
15 you have some additional?
16 MR. HILL: Brief.
17 THE COURT: Why don't we go ahead and do that and
18 then we'll take a recess, counselor.
19 MR. HILL: Okay.
20 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. HILL:
22 Q. Mr. McMullan, the book does say papers; each of the papers
23 says papers and not chapters in the book itself; isn't that
24 correct?
25 A. That's correct.
00528 { 2:52:10pm}
01 Q. Okay. And in discussing the letter that was put up from
02 Sir Hubert Wilkins, do you have any information that Sir Hubert
03 Wilkins was on The Contact Commission?
04 A. No.
05 Q. I believe you testified before that your understanding was
06 that he was a member of The Forum?
07 A. Well, I read that it was -- your people testified that it
08 was The Forum members who contributed, and it said that he gave
09 the first contribution of the $1,000, and so I deduced from
10 that that he must have been a member of The Forum.
11 Q. Okay. Are you trying to have it both ways here? Are you
12 trying to say that this person was totally unconscious in these
13 sessions but then when he left the sessions he was working from
14 divine inspiration as he went to the Bible and Wyman's work and
15 Plato and everything else? Are you trying to have it both ways
16 there?
17 A. I don't know how it worked.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I really don't, Mr. Hill. And I don't think anybody else
20 does. All we can do is look at these -- there are just a few
21 facts and we can look at them and try to figure out what's the
22 most plausible scenario.
23 Q. Okay. You said that Dr. Sadler is the one getting the
24 profit out of this thing. Have you seen any evidence that
25 Dr. Sadler made any money as a result of this?
00529 { 2:52:10pm}
01 A. I didn't mean money.
02 Q. Oh, okay. Okay. And if protecting the anonymity of the
03 patient subject, as you've referred to this person, was
04 actually the motive for not listing him on the copyright
05 registration certificate, would your contention still be that
06 it was ill-motivated?
07 A. If he had -- If he had had the ability to get an
08 assignment, in my opinion, given the fact that he's a physician
09 and this man is his patient, he would at least have gotten a
10 piece of paper and stuck it in a safe somewhere to say, you
11 know, Mr. Jim Jones, or whoever he is, agrees with everything
12 that's happening and wants Dr. Sadler and knows through him to
13 publish this work. I think it's really odd, knowing that he
14 was a physician and knowing the relationship, that he didn't --
15 and knowing that he had copyright lawyers involved in it, that
16 he would not have gone -- at least taken the precaution of
17 getting something that nobody else had to see except for him
18 and stick it in a safe somewhere. And all the evidence --
19 because he didn't do that, it's just -- it just smells to me.
20 MR. HILL: I don't have any other questions, Judge.
21 Thank you.
22 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
23 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be recessed
24 for 15 minutes. Be back in the jury box in 15 minutes.
25 Remember my previous admonition.
00530 { 2:52:35pm}
01 Court is in recess.
02 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
03 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
04 THE JURY:)
05 THE COURT: Be seated.
06 Do you have any additional witnesses?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: I do.
08 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
09 MR. ABOWITZ: I'd like to call Ross Plourde posing
10 as Scott M. Forsythe.
11 THE COURT: Be seated, counselor. We don't need to
12 swear counsel. You're just going to be reading depositions,
13 aren't you?
14 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir.
15 THE COURT: Go ahead.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you like to make some comment to
17 the jury, Judge?
18 THE COURT: Let me explain to the jury.
19 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the rules and procedures
20 in federal court allow testimony to be given by someone in the
21 form of a deposition. That's sworn statements taken by this
22 person outside the courtroom but the procedures do allow the
23 questions and answers to be read.
24 Who is the deposition, Mr. Plourde?
25 MR. PLOURDE: Scott Forsythe.
00531 { 3:20:38pm}
01 THE COURT: And Mr. Plourde will be playing the role
02 of Scott Forsythe.
03 And who was the questioner? Was it Mr. Abowitz?
04 MR. PLOURDE: No, it was actually Joe Lewis, I
05 believe.
06 THE COURT: Okay. These two people are different
07 from the questioner and answerer but those questions and
08 answers were given. You're not to discount or disregard this
09 simply because it doesn't come to you live but in the form of a
10 deposition.
11 MR. ABOWITZ: May I check pagination here?
12 THE COURT: Sure.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: If it please the Court, my reading of
14 this deposition includes the designations not only of the
15 plaintiff but the defendant.
16 THE COURT: Pardon?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: My reading of the deposition and the --
18 the questions and the answers that are going to be presented
19 here include not only the designations of the plaintiff but
20 also the designations of the defendant.
21 THE COURT: Let the record so reflect. Go ahead.
22 (DEPOSITION EXCERPTS OF SCOTT FORSYTHE WERE READ TO THE
23 JURY, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN
24 COURT:)
25 MR. ABOWITZ: That concludes the presentation of
00532 { 3:44:29pm}
01 Mr. Forsythe's deposition and, with that, the plaintiff rests,
02 Your Honor.
03 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hill?
04 MR. HILL: We call Gard Jameson, Your Honor.
05 THE COURT: Come right up here, if you will, please,
06 and raise your right hand and be sworn.
07 (WITNESS SWORN)
08 FRANK GARD JAMESON, JR.
09 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
10 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
11 THE COURT: If you will, be seated here and speak
12 into the microphone and I'll ask you to state your full name
13 and spell your last name for the jury and the Court, please.
14 THE WITNESS: Full name is Frank Gard Jameson, Jr.
15 Last name is J-A-M-E-S-O-N.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Hill?
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. HILL:
19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jameson. How are you?
20 A. Good.
21 Q. Good.
22 Would you tell the jury a little bit about yourself by way
23 of background.
24 A. I live in Boulder City, Nevada. I'm married. My wife,
25 Florence, she's a physician. I have two children: Michael,
00533 { 3:46:24pm}
01 who's 11, and Julia, who is going to be 10 tomorrow.
02 Q. And what about your professional background?
03 A. I'm a certified public accountant and a certified
04 financial planner. I work for a large CPA firm in Las Vegas,
05 Nevada. I've been with them for about 15 years.
06 And I'm also teaching philosophy at the University of
07 Nevada, Las Vegas.
08 Q. What topics do you teach?
09 A. I teach western and eastern philosophy and comparative
10 religion.
11 Q. Okay. And do you serve on any boards of any public
12 service organizations or nonprofits?
13 A. I serve on a few. I serve as a director on the Nevada
14 Community Foundation. I serve on the board of the National
15 Conference for Community and Justice which used to be called
16 the National Conference for Christians and Jews. I serve on
17 the Southern Nevada Interfaith Council. I serve on the North
18 American Interfaith Network Board. I also serve on a Museum of
19 Natural History in Southern California called the Raymond M.
20 Alf Museum of Life. And on a privately-held company by the
21 name of Glen-Air, Inc. in Glendale, California.
22 Q. Okay. And in addition to that, we've heard some testimony
23 already that you are a trustee of Urantia Foundation; is that
24 correct?
25 A. Yes, sir.
00534 { 3:47:49pm}
01 Q. Do you attend church in Nevada?
02 A. I attend our Methodist Church in Boulder City, Nevada.
03 Q. And how long have you been attending that church?
04 A. We've been members there since 1994.
05 Q. When did you first read The Urantia Book?
06 A. I first got a copy -- I was attending college at Stanford
07 University and I picked up a copy in the spring of 1972.
08 Q. At some point, did you begin to interact with other
09 readers of The Urantia Book?
10 A. Pretty much within about a month or two I was attending a
11 study group in Berkeley, California. And I went to my first
12 conference in 1973.
13 Q. And at some point did you begin to participate in the
14 activities of an organization known as Urantia Brotherhood?
15 A. Yes. I became a member at large of The Urantia
16 Brotherhood in 1973.
17 Q. During your interaction with The Urantia Brotherhood, did
18 you come to know Harry McMullan, III?
19 A. Yes. Harry was in the Berkeley area while I was there and
20 he worked with a group called the Family of God Foundation.
21 Q. I want to back up to one thing that you said. You
22 mentioned your involvement in several organizations affiliated
23 with interfaith. Could you tell the jury what interfaith is?
24 A. The interfaith movement is basically an aggregation of
25 different faith traditions that have come together around what
00535 { 3:49:35pm}
01 are called interfaith councils. The North American Interfaith
02 Network is a network of about 70 interfaith councils around
03 North America, Canada, as well as Mexico. And on those
04 councils, different faith communities are represented and the
05 motivation is basically to build bridges of understanding and
06 cooperation between faith traditions.
07 Q. During your experiences with The Urantia Brotherhood, did
08 you also come to know an individual named Mo Seigel?
09 A. Yes. I believe I met Mo sometime in the '70s, maybe 1976
10 in Chicago at a conference.
11 Q. And at some point -- actually, how long were you involved
12 with Urantia Brotherhood?
13 A. Well, as I say, I became a member at large in 1973 and
14 then we formed a society in the Bay area called the San
15 Francisco Bay Area Society which was a society of The Urantia
16 Brotherhood. I believe that was 1978 or '79. And I'm still a
17 member of the Urantia Fellowship as well as of the
18 International Urantia Association, so I still consider myself
19 to be a member.
20 Q. So you're still involved with the activities of The
21 Fellowship even now?
22 A. Very much.
23 Q. And have you held leadership positions in The Fellowship?
24 A. Yes. I was elected onto the general council in 1988 and
25 became a member of the executive committee and chaired their
00536 { 3:51:12pm}
01 finance committee in 1989, and then became -- subsequently
02 chaired what's called the fraternal relations committee which
03 is an interfaith kind of committee.
04 Q. At some point we've heard some testimony that in 1989
05 Urantia Brotherhood and Urantia Foundation split, for lack of a
06 better word. Is that your understanding, your recollection?
07 A. Yes. In 1989 there was a split between what was called
08 The Urantia Brotherhood and The Urantia Foundation.
09 Q. Would you tell the jury a little bit about the
10 circumstances that led up to that as you recall them.
11 A. Well, there was a fair amount of antagonism between
12 Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood. One of the
13 trustees who was president, Martin Myers, was a very angry kind
14 of fellow and he actually had dossiers on people who I knew to
15 be pretty reasonable and nice people. And at one point I was
16 with him and he was jumping up and down screaming how evil this
17 particular person was and I just knew this person was not that
18 way. And so, as I say, there was this antagonism between
19 Martin Myers and the then Urantia Brotherhood and that
20 antagonism grew. It really started somewhere in the mid '80s
21 and it grew to a breaking point in 1989 when we received a
22 letter, I think it was the fall of 1989, evicting us from The
23 Foundation's offices and delicensing us, which would be
24 basically taking away our ability to use the marks.
25 Q. And that includes the Urantia and Urantian trademarks?
00537 { 3:52:55pm}
01 THE COURT: I can't hear you, counsel.
02 Q. (BY MR. HILL) That includes the Urantia and Urantian
03 trademarks of Urantia Foundation?
04 A. Yes, sir.
05 Q. And would you describe how that breakup affected you
06 personally.
07 A. Well, I was very distraught. Teaching comparative
08 religion and doing some of the work that I do, I like putting
09 people together and not seeing them split apart, so it was very
10 disturbing to me because I had friends on both sides of the
11 equation. So, I did what I could to try to patch things up but
12 the forces that were in existence at that time were much larger
13 than I so there wasn't much to be done, so the split did occur
14 and --
15 Q. Do you know a man named Richard Keeler?
16 A. Yes. Richard is godfather of our children.
17 Q. And it was about that time, was it not, that Mr. Keeler
18 became a trustee for Urantia Foundation?
19 A. Shortly after the split, I believe. There were, I think,
20 three trustees who we were kind of pinning our hopes would sort
21 of stem the tide of the behavior of The Urantia Foundation.
22 They resigned, and Richard, I think, became one of the new
23 trustees.
24 Q. Okay. And what if anything are you aware of that
25 Mr. Keeler did in connection with the breakup of Urantia
00538 { 3:54:19pm}
01 Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood?
02 A. Well, in my opinion, Richard attempted to be something of
03 a peacemaker in the process. In fact, right after the split
04 occurred, at personal expense, he went around I think to
05 virtually everybody who was on the general council, he flew all
06 over the country and sat down with each of us, and I remember
07 that day in my office he came to me and he said, "You know, if
08 you could just be patient, I think we can work this out within
09 Urantia Foundation." He recognized that there was perhaps an
10 issue with Martin Myers and his psychology and he just asked me
11 amongst the other people who were part of the executive
12 committee and the general council to be patient with the
13 process.
14 However, because of the split, there was not only
15 antagonism from the part of The Urantia Foundation, there was
16 extreme antagonism on the part of several members of the
17 executive committee toward Urantia Foundation. In fact, I
18 would say there was kind of a demonization of Urantia
19 Foundation. So, as a result of that, all communications kind
20 of collapsed.
21 Q. And you've already testified that The Urantia Brotherhood
22 reconstituted itself as The Fellowship; correct?
23 A. Originally, the name was the Fifth Epochal Fellowship and
24 then subsequently we changed our name to The Fellowship.
25 Q. Okay. While on The Fellowship, did you -- you served in a
00539 { 3:55:48pm}
01 leadership position?
02 A. Yes. As I mentioned before, I was chair of the fraternal
03 relations committee which is an interfaith committee.
04 Q. So that continued even after The Urantia Brotherhood
05 reconstituted itself?
06 A. Yes, sir.
07 Q. Okay. And did you serve with Mr. McMullan on the
08 executive committee of The Fellowship?
09 A. Yes. He was on the executive committee and I believe he
10 was either finance chair or treasurer of the organization.
11 Q. And during the course of working with Mr. McMullan in The
12 Fellowship, would you say you became friendly with him?
13 A. Well, I've known Harry since the early '70s and I don't
14 know how he feels about me but I consider him to be one of my
15 best friends.
16 Q. During your time as an executive committee member of The
17 Fellowship, did you go to out-of-town conferences?
18 A. We went to a lot of out-of-town conferences. Whenever we
19 went to Chicago and had our executive committee meetings, for
20 the most part Harry and I would room together.
21 Q. You even relayed a little personal anecdote to me out in
22 the hall that Mr. McMullan dated your sister.
23 A. Well, he had an interest in my younger sister Mary, and I
24 think there was at least one date.
25 Q. Tell me whether or not you recall a time when you and
00540 { 3:57:13pm}
01 Mr. McMullan worked on a project to develop a computerized
02 folio index to The Urantia Book.
03 A. While I was in Las Vegas, one of my clients was party to a
04 company in Utah that was developing a program called Folio
05 Views which is a program which allows you to search a CD. You
06 can put a word in like "love" and it will pull up every passage
07 in The Urantia Book related to love, and it was very exciting
08 to me. Becoming aware of the technology, I related it to Harry
09 and Harry agreed to be, if you will, kind of a 50-50 partner to
10 finance this project. So we produced a Folio Views of The
11 Urantia Book.
12 Q. At some point, did there come a time when that project was
13 donated to Urantia Foundation?
14 A. Yeah. I forget exactly the sequence of events but at some
15 point I think I told Richard about it and then I subsequently
16 got a letter asking for an assignment of all rights to the
17 Folio Views program and I signed that over, I signed my portion
18 over to Urantia Foundation.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. HILL: Bob, can you pull up Urantia Foundation
21 exhibit 50?
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One second, Steve.
23 Q. (BY MR. HILL) If you can't see it on this screen, there's
24 a monitor right behind you there. You can turn it on and see
25 it there, if it's not on already.
00541 { 3:59:26pm}
01 A. Oh, okay. There. I just got a pair of progressive
02 glasses, so I'm getting to that age.
03 Q. I see.
04 Directing your attention to the first whereas clause where
05 it says, "Whereas, Urantia Foundation is the owner of all
06 right, title and interest in and to the copyright in a book
07 entitled The Urantia Book."
08 Do you recall whether or not that kind of language was in
09 the form that you were asked to sign by Urantia Foundation?
10 A. That looks like a replica of what I signed over to Urantia
11 Foundation.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not -- by the way, when was
13 this exactly that you signed this agreement?
14 A. It was 1991, I believe.
15 Q. And do you know whether or not Mr. McMullan was asked to
16 sign a similar agreement?
17 A. He was. As I said, when the split occurred, there was
18 several people who were very antagonistic towards Urantia
19 Foundation, and, in fact, kind of demonized Urantia
20 Foundation. Harry said he would never sign any document
21 assigning anything over to Urantia Foundation.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. HILL: You can take it down, Bob.
24 Q. (BY MR. HILL) While you were an executive with The
25 Fellowship, did Mr. McMullan ever suggest that The Fellowship
00542 { 4:00:41pm}
01 should move its headquarters from Chicago to Oklahoma City?
02 A. Yeah, there was a period in the early '90s, maybe '93,
03 that Harry indicated he felt it would be much more efficient to
04 have the headquarters of The Fellowship be located in Oklahoma
05 City at his offices.
06 Q. At some point in the early '90's, did you learn of the
07 existence of some copyright infringement litigation between
08 Urantia Foundation and a woman named Kristen Maaherra?
09 A. Yes, everybody in the movement was aware of that lawsuit.
10 Q. And did you ever hear Mr. McMullan say anything about that
11 particular litigation?
12 A. That litigation was one of the most important things in
13 Harry's mind and he frequently talked about the Maaherra case.
14 Q. And when he talked about the Maaherra case, what kinds of
15 things would he tell you?
16 A. Well, he felt that Kristen would prevail in that case. He
17 felt quite certain that she would prevail in that case and he
18 actually helped to finance the case through his charitable
19 foundation called Asoka Foundation.
20 Q. At some point during that Maaherra case, did The
21 Fellowship learn of a decision at the trial court level
22 regarding Urantia Foundation's copyright?
23 A. Yes. In early '95, a decision was handed down by Judge
24 Urbom that invalidated the copyright.
25 Q. And do you know whether or not Urantia Foundation appealed
00543 { 4:02:22pm}
01 from that decision?
02 A. Yes, they did appeal.
03 Q. And do you know what the result of that appeal was?
04 A. The Ninth Circuit upheld the copyright.
05 Q. And going back to the time when you learned that
06 Judge Urbom had ruled that the copyright was not valid, what
07 was the reaction among the executives of The Fellowship?
08 A. Well, there was a feeling of elation amongst several of
09 them. In fact, there had been a book in preparation in
10 anticipation of the invalidation of the copyright that Harry
11 was responsible for. He had his secretaries proofreading it
12 and getting it ready and as soon as that decision came down,
13 there was a decision to move post haste to get the book
14 published.
15 Q. And did Mr. McMullan ever say anything to the leadership
16 of The Fellowship about the odds of Ms. Maaherra succeeding on
17 the appeal?
18 A. Well, again, he felt 100 percent certain she would win,
19 which she did, and he felt that the appeal would lose, and that
20 the invalidation of the copyright would prevail.
21 Q. In connection with that, did Mr. McMullan ever discuss
22 whether or not The Fellowship should get involved in the
23 Maaherra appeal?
24 A. Yes, there was several members of the executive committee
25 who felt that we should file some kind of legal brief in
00544 { 4:03:54pm}
01 support of Kristen's position. It's known as an amicus brief,
02 a friend-of-the-court brief.
03 Q. Did The Fellowship, in fact, file a brief on behalf of
04 Ms. Maaherra's position?
05 A. In, gosh, I think it's the winter of '96 we had a meeting
06 in San Francisco, our mid-year meeting, and there was a heated
07 debate that I recall, and it was split about 50-50, but the
08 people that were voting to file this legal brief in support of
09 Kristen's case won by one or two votes.
10 Q. And at some point The Fellowship became aware of the end
11 result of that appeal; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you have the opportunity to observe Mr. McMullan's
14 reaction to the news that the copyright had been restored?
15 A. As I say, I mean, Harry, for whatever reason, felt that
16 The Urantia Foundation was an evil institution and that the
17 copyright needed to be invalidated. So, upon the upholding of
18 the copyright, Harry was prepared to go back to court to
19 invalidate it.
20 Q. In the black binders that are just off your right shoulder
21 there, can you find the exhibit that is marked Urantia
22 Foundation Exhibit 33.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Directing your attention to the lower of the two e-mails
25 on that e-mail trail, do you recall receiving an e-mail stating
00545 { 4:05:43pm}
01 words to the effect of those that are stated on exhibit 33?
02 A. Yes, sir.
03 MR. ABOWITZ: It's okay, Judge. No objection.
04 THE COURT: No objection?
05 MR. HILL: No objection?
06 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection.
07 MR. HILL: Okay. Great.
08 THE COURT: Be admitted.
09 MR. HILL: We'll ask that exhibit 33 be pulled up.
10 Can you go down to the middle portion, beginning with, "Harry
11 McMullan wrote"? A little bit lower. Four lines up from the
12 bottom, Bob.
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh, okay.
14 MR. HILL: There you go.
15 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Would you go ahead and read what -- first
16 of all, did you receive this as a member of the executive
17 committee?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Okay. Would you go ahead and read what Mr. McMullan wrote
20 to you.
21 A. It says, "Dear friends, With the Ninth Circuit's denial of
22 Maaherra's petition for rehearing, I expect soon to be involved
23 in what will likely be protracted litigation with Urantia
24 Foundation. Based on the facts of record and despite the
25 hurdle of the Ninth Circuit opinion, my attorneys are convinced
00546 { 4:06:52pm}
01 that the Ninth Circuit's ruling can be overturned. I regard
02 freeing The Urantia Book from the control of Urantia Foundation
03 not only to be vital to the progress of the revelation on the
04 earth during our lifetime, but to the long-term survival of The
05 Fellowship as an entity distinguishable from IUA."
06 Q. Just for the jury's benefit, remind us what IUA is.
07 A. IUA is an acronym for the International Urantia
08 Association which was created after the split occurred.
09 Urantia Foundation was trying to find out where its friends
10 were and so another social body was created called the IUA.
11 And the people who were supporting the copyright became members
12 of the IUA in support of Urantia Foundation.
13 Q. In the immediate aftermath of the Maaherra decision on
14 appeal, how would you characterize the relationship between
15 Urantia Foundation and The Fellowship?
16 A. After the appeal?
17 Q. After the -- yes, after the appeal became knowledge --
18 public knowledge.
19 A. Well, again, there was quite a bit of antagonism between
20 the two entities and there was very little communication. In
21 fact, I remember in our executive committee meetings, folks
22 saying, "Why do we have to keep talking about Urantia
23 Foundation? They're not part of our decision-making process."
24 Q. Was there a sense of rivalry between the two organizations
25 in 1997?
00547 { 4:08:30pm}
01 A. Well, when The Fellowship had its own printed copy of The
02 Urantia Book, there was certainly a sense of competition and a
03 feeling that The Fellowship could do a much better job at
04 distributing The Urantia Book than The Urantia Foundation.
05 Q. That went on from what year to what year?
06 A. Well, it went on until the copyright was upheld by the
07 Ninth Circuit in '97, I believe.
08 Q. So from about '95 to '97 The Fellowship was printing the
09 book?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And what happened as a result of the outcome of the appeal
12 in Urantia Foundation's favor?
13 A. Well, I'm not an attorney but apparently if you do
14 something like that during an interim period where it's in the
15 court of appeals, you can be found financially liable for
16 having printed a copyrighted book. So there was quite a bit of
17 concern amongst the executive committee as to our financial
18 liability for having printed the book, and so there was a
19 desire to get together with Urantia Foundation and try to
20 negotiate some kind of a compromised settlement.
21 Q. And was that successful?
22 A. Yes, we felt it was very successful.
23 Q. And as a result of those negotiations between Urantia
24 Foundation and The Fellowship, was litigation avoided?
25 A. Litigation was avoided.
00548 { 4:09:53pm}
01 Q. And tell us how you came to be a trustee of Urantia
02 Foundation.
03 A. In the fall of 1997, two trustees resigned, Pat Mundelius
04 and Tom Burns, and there is a clause in our trust agreement
05 that says that those positions must be filled within a 90-day
06 period.
07 In January of '98, Richard Keeler called me and asked if I
08 would consider becoming a trustee. We had our conversation.
09 The first time he asked, I said no, because I was comfortable
10 with my routine and what I was doing with Interfaith. And so
11 he came back again and asked me again, "Would you reconsider?
12 It would be very important to Urantia Foundation for you to
13 consider becoming a trustee." In fact, he filled in the
14 details. He said, "The three of us who are now trustees got
15 together and we decided this would be an opportune time to try
16 to heal the rift that occurred between The Fellowship and
17 Urantia Foundation." And he said, "By having you as a trustee,
18 we hope that this will be, if you will, a peacemaking effort on
19 our behalf toward The Fellowship and begin to mend the sense of
20 rivalry or the division that had occurred."
21 So, I was the chair of fraternal relations and the object
22 of fraternal relations is to try to bring peace and cooperation
23 and understanding. So, as I got to thinking and praying about
24 it, I realized, well, I think that's a natural extension of the
25 position I'm now holding, therefore I felt compelled to agree
00549 { 4:11:45pm}
01 and then I became a trustee.
02 Q. Now, going back to the time when you were contemplating
03 making this decision, did you perceive Urantia Foundation to be
04 a perfect organization?
05 A. No. In 1989, when the split occurred, I had had, as I
06 said earlier, my interactions with Martin Myers and I felt very
07 comfortable with this man at the helm of Urantia Foundation and
08 I felt that the trust that he held at Urantia Foundation was
09 very important in terms of publishing and distributing the
10 book, and there were some policies at Urantia Foundation in
11 terms of distribution where some of the channels of
12 distribution had been shut down. In fact, there were some
13 people within The Fellowship and other folks who basically
14 could not get hold of a book. They wouldn't be sold a book
15 because Martin Myers said, "Don't you dare sell books to that
16 person or that person."
17 So, no, Urantia Foundation, like any organization, had its
18 wars. In 1993/'94, I decided though to venture out and I went
19 to a conference that Urantia Foundation was holding in
20 Nashville, Tennessee to sort of see what was going on because
21 there had been a rupture in communications and we really didn't
22 know what was going on at Urantia Foundation, and so I went to
23 Nashville as kind of a pilgrimage and I met many friends there
24 and saw Richard and the current trustees and became familiar
25 with the translation work that they were doing, the
00550 { 4:13:12pm}
01 distribution work that they were doing, and became very
02 favorably impressed and felt even more the need to try to rift
03 the division that had occurred -- to patch the division that
04 had occurred.
05 Q. Just incidentally, we've heard a lot of testimony in this
06 case about Mr. Myers. What happened to Mr. Myers, to the best
07 of your understanding, in terms of his relationship with
08 Urantia Foundation?
09 A. Well, as Richard had suggested when he went around and met
10 with all of us, he said, "Just give us some time so we can work
11 this issue out." I think his behavior became even worse, and
12 after about two or three years, Mr. Myers was asked to resign
13 by the other trustees. That was a very difficult decision, I
14 know, for Richard and for the other trustees but they felt
15 compelled to ask him to resign.
16 Q. And do you know whether he continued to hold a position on
17 the board of trustees after that time?
18 A. He resigned very reluctantly.
19 Q. Now, after you became a trustee of Urantia Foundation, did
20 you do -- well, first of all, once you became a trustee of
21 Urantia Foundation, were there any other slots on the board
22 left to be filled?
23 A. Yes. As I mentioned, there were two trustees that had
24 resigned in the fall of '97, so there were two slots to be
25 filled. In fact, when Richard first called me, I suggested the
00551 { 4:14:43pm}
01 name of Mo Seigel to him feeling that Mo, being a chief
02 executive officer of a large company, would be much more
03 efficient and effective than I. So those trustees, the three
04 trustees, got together and they decided to bring both of us on.
05 Q. And what -- since you brought it up, what company are you
06 referring to with regard to Mr. Siegel?
07 A. He was the chief executive officer of Celestial Seasonings
08 Tea Company.
09 Q. And did Mr. Siegel join the board as well?
10 A. Yes, he did.
11 Q. And once the two of you were on the board, how many
12 trustees were there?
13 A. There were five trustees on the board.
14 Q. So you and Mr. Siegel were two of five trustees?
15 A. We were two of five, and two of five is a significant
16 percentage. Richard and the other trustees hadn't been in much
17 communication with us. I had some personal encounters with
18 Richard in the early '90s where we just sort of talked about
19 the genesis of the split and why it had happened and what could
20 be done about it, but there hadn't been a whole lot of
21 communication. So that was a big faith step on the part of
22 those trustees to bring two people onto their board from The
23 Fellowship.
24 Q. Did you see that as an olive branch to The Fellowship?
25 A. It was a very significant olive branch.
00552 { 4:16:12pm}
01 Q. Tell me, once you and Mr. Siegel joined the board of
02 trustees, did you do anything with respect to the copyright and
03 trademark policies of the organization?
04 A. Well, we joined in the winter of 1998. And in the summer
05 of '98, we had a meeting in Boulder, Colorado at Mo's offices
06 and Tonia Baney, I believe, was there. We got together to
07 reflect upon our copyright and trademark policies. What we
08 really wanted to do was to clear the air and make sure that
09 people were aware of what was permissible and what was not
10 permissible. So, we also invited our copyright attorney to
11 visit with us so that we understood how much of a liberal
12 interpretation could we apply to the copyright law and to
13 trademark law so that people would have no sense of ambiguity
14 or lack of clarity with respect to how they could use the three
15 concentric circles or the name Urantia to identify themselves
16 as readers of The Urantia Book or associated with the three
17 concentric circles, the symbol of the trinity.
18 With respect to copyright, we came out with policies which
19 in my opinion were very liberal and allowed people to do a lot
20 in the way of secondary works. There was one policy which
21 allowed for 5,000 words for commercial works where you didn't
22 have to get any permission.
23 It used to be, just to give you a little background, it
24 used to be, back in the early '70s, you couldn't use a word.
25 It was very restrictive. So, that was a big step forward in
00553 { 4:17:50pm}
01 terms of interpretation of the fair-use policy on copyright.
02 And then the labor of love, these would be like speeches
03 or things that individuals would do to promote or disseminate
04 the teachings of The Urantia Book, that was 25,000 words.
05 That's a lot. That's a lot.
06 So, we felt like we really went to the outer limits in
07 terms of the ability of individuals to make use of both
08 trademark and copyright for creative purposes.
09 Q. You have any discussions with Mr. McMullan about his plans
10 to print Jesus - A New Revelation?
11 A. Yes. Harry and I took a few walks. I remember walking
12 with him in Washington, D.C. at a Fellowship conference and
13 visiting about part IV. I wrote him a couple of letters.
14 Again, Harry viewed and I think views now The Urantia
15 Foundation as an evil organization and that its copyright is
16 illegitimate. So, his sense of antagonism toward Urantia
17 Foundation was pretty absolute. He wasn't going to consider
18 any alternatives.
19 Mo and I are very close friends of Harry's and we had
20 suggested why not he think about some kind of a creative piece
21 with respect to part IV that he could do which would be within
22 the guidelines of the copyright law, and it was his sense of
23 mission, and I'm sure it is still his sense of mission, that it
24 was God's will for him to publish this book and no copyright or
25 no foundation was going to stand in his way.
00554 { 4:19:35pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'd move that be stricken.
02 That's speculation on behalf of the witness, and he said as
03 much.
04 THE COURT: Overruled.
05 Q. (BY MR. HILL) I wanted to ask you whether or not, in
06 addition to those walks you took with him, you ever sent him
07 any letters?
08 A. Yes, I sent him two letters that I can remember and he
09 sent me one letter in response.
10 Q. And do you recall anything about the letter that he sent
11 you?
12 A. Well, he said in one part of the letter, he said, "I am
13 unalterably antagonistic toward Urantia Foundation," which is
14 sort of a black-and-white statement. Being in the world of
15 philosophy and comparative religion, I just don't think reality
16 is black and white.
17 Q. Does The Urantia Foundation presently have any ties to any
18 churches?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You'd agree that the content of The Urantia Book is at
21 least, in part, religious?
22 A. There is a significant religious aspect to The Urantia
23 Book.
24 Q. The jury really hasn't heard much of the breakdown of the
25 contents of the book. Why don't you tell them what the four
00555 { 4:20:46pm}
01 parts of the book are, in general terms.
02 A. The book indicates early on in the book that its intention
03 is to give us, if you will, the big picture. So, in part I,
04 there is a description of the cosmos, of the universe and its
05 structure and the order of angels and the various places that
06 exist within the universe, and some sense of the hierarchy
07 within the universe. There's a clear articulation in the very
08 first part of the book, the first five papers, on the nature
09 and attributes of God. It's a very lovely section with lots of
10 references to the Old and New Testament.
11 And then there's another part there in part I which
12 elaborates on the eternal Son and his nature, again with lots
13 of references to the Old and New Testament, and then on the
14 infinite spirit, the Holy Spirit, with lots of references. And
15 then there's a chapter on the trinity. So, it's a very large
16 view that's given in part I.
17 In part II, there is a breakdown which begins to talk
18 about our local universe, which is where we live. The sense is
19 in The Urantia Book that there are many universes within the
20 grand universe, and that we're part of a local universe and
21 that Jesus actually administers that local universe. And, so
22 it gives a description, kind of a geographical kind of
23 depiction along with who the personalities are that inhabit
24 that local universe.
25 Then in part III, there's a description of our planet and
00556 { 4:22:20pm}
01 the history of our planet and sort of the course of events that
02 have affected planetary history with a recounting of the days
03 of Caligastia and Lucifer; a recounting of the days of Adam and
04 Eve; a recounting of the days of Melchizadek, who was the high
05 priest of Salem during the time of Abraham. And then a very
06 nice depiction of the philosophy and psychology of religion and
07 philosophy and science, integrating the three: philosophy,
08 religion and science.
09 And then in part IV, there's a depiction of the life and
10 teachings of Jesus, and that's how I originally got interested
11 in The Urantia Book. I was sitting in this book store and a
12 fellow was describing a period of Jesus' life, which was early
13 on in his life, and I knew it wasn't in the New Testament, and
14 so I became intrigued and picked up the book and started
15 reading it.
16 So, that's kind of an overview of The Urantia Book.
17 Q. Since 1950, are you aware of any attempts by Urantia
18 Foundation to establish an institutional church or religion
19 based upon The Urantia Book?
20 A. There was, I think in the late '50s, Dr. Sadler wanted to
21 set up a school. I think there was even mention of the
22 ordination of ministers at that time but nothing came of that.
23 I think there was -- there was a reaction to that intention and
24 nothing came of it.
25 Q. And presently are there any efforts along those lines?
00557 { 4:23:59pm}
01 A. No. The current trustees really feel it's our
02 responsibility to publish this book, to translate this book,
03 and to disseminate this book. That is our sole responsibility.
04 Q. How are the efforts going along those lines?
05 A. Well, when you get somebody like Mo Seigel aboard, things
06 get exciting. He's a marketer by training. We are selling
07 more books than we've ever sold in the history of the
08 movement. Last year, it was about 39,000 books. And the
09 exciting thing was that about half of those sales were in
10 Spanish-speaking countries.
11 Q. What about translations?
12 A. We have -- I may be off one or two -- but I believe there
13 are 12 translation underway right now. We have a French
14 translation that's been completed. As I said, we have a
15 Spanish translation that's been completed. We have a Russian
16 translation that's been completed. We have a Finnish
17 translation that's been completed, and a Korean translation.
18 Q. At some point during this litigation, did you come to
19 learn that Mr. McMullan had taken the position that a subject
20 was the human author of The Urantia Book?
21 A. Yeah, about a month ago I found out that he had changed
22 his position on who the author of The Urantia Book was.
23 Q. How long had he held the position that the book was a work
24 of celestial authorship, if you will?
25 A. Ever since I've known Harry.
00558 { 4:25:40pm}
01 Q. And that began --
02 A. 1973, I believe. 1972.
03 Q. Are you familiar with a term known as the millennium
04 initiative?
05 A. Yes. I was one of the people that pushed that initiative.
06 Q. And tell the jury what the millennium initiative was.
07 A. The millennium initiative was an initiative on the part of
08 several people who were a part of The Fellowship as well as
09 part of The Foundation and the IUA to patch things up, to put
10 our house back in order. A house divided against itself will
11 not stand. There's a very clear articulation of that in The
12 Urantia Book. In fact, one of the central values of The
13 Urantia Book is that unity is the existential fact of the
14 universe; it is the core of our experience if we would but open
15 ourselves up to it. So, to begin to live that out within the
16 people that were reading The Urantia Book was a very high
17 priority. It's always been a high priority for me but it
18 became a high priority for a group of people who began this
19 millennium initiative which was the commencement of a set of
20 dialogues trying to bring that rift together.
21 Q. Now, there's been some previous testimony about a recent
22 mediation between Urantia Foundation and The Urantia Book
23 Fellowship. Can you tell us, from your perspective, what the
24 conflict was that gave rise to the need for mediation.
25 A. The Fellowship has a very significant web site presence.
00559 { 4:27:21pm}
01 On their web site, there were several translations of the book
02 that had not been sort of officially completed. They were
03 partial translations. Our translators, people from those
04 countries, were reflecting back to us as trustees that many of
05 those were of poor quality. So, there was a deep concern that
06 this web site was representing The Urantia Book with a poor
07 quality translation.
08 Our desire, through copyright, has been to provide as high
09 a quality of translation in all foreign countries as possible
10 so that people could have the same opportunity of reading this
11 book as closely to the original text as possible. So, the
12 web site had unauthorized translations. I believe there was
13 also some trademark violations associated with the web site.
14 And, so, the mediation was an attempt to work our way through
15 those issues.
16 Q. And did you participate in that mediation?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Did all of the trustees attend that mediation?
19 A. Yes, we did.
20 Q. And what about The Fellowship, who attended that mediation
21 on behalf of The Fellowship?
22 A. There was several members of their executive committee,
23 Dan Massey, Marvin Garland, Marilyn Kulieke. I'm slipping on a
24 couple of the others.--
25 Q. Avi Dogim?
00560 { 4:28:50pm}
01 A. Avi was there. He's the president of The Fellowship right
02 now.
03 Q. And Mr. Plourde was there on behalf of The Fellowship; is
04 that not correct?
05 A. Yes, Ross was there.
06 Q. And I was there?
07 A. You were there.
08 Q. And how long did we -- when did we start mediating, Gard?
09 A. It was a marathon session. We went from 9 a.m. to
10 3 o'clock in the morning. It was very tiring toward the end,
11 but we kept pushing because we knew we needed to bridge this
12 rift.
13 Q. And was that mediation successful?
14 A. I believe it was.
15 Q. Now, I want to ask you whether or not you encouraged
16 Mr. McMullan to come up with the idea for publishing part IV of
17 The Urantia Book on its own.
18 A. I can't say that I encouraged Harry to do this. During
19 the early '90s, during the period of the split, there were
20 several of us, Mo included, who thought maybe this would be a
21 good idea to have a separate part IV. And so that idea was in
22 the air. Like any idea, you consider it and you reconsider it
23 and you keep coming back to it until you arrive at a
24 conclusion, and my conclusion was that it was not a good idea.
25 Q. And what about Mr. Siegel, do you know whether or not
00561 { 4:30:29pm}
01 Mr. Siegel -- were you ever present when Mr. Siegel encouraged
02 Mr. McMullan to print part IV separately?
03 A. Again, I wouldn't call Mo the inspiration for this idea.
04 I think Harry came up with the idea all by himself. But during
05 the discussions, there was consideration of the idea and I
06 think Mo for a period of time was excited about the idea. Part
07 IV is a very powerful statement about Jesus but what I came to
08 realize was that this is part of a larger whole. If you want
09 the full story, you take all four parts. That's how it was
10 given to us and I don't want to second guess how it was given
11 to us.
12 Q. And once you learned that Jesus - A New Revelation had
13 been published, what was the board of trustees' initial
14 reaction?
15 A. Dismay because we had made several attempts to visit with
16 Harry. I remember out in California, Tonia and I sat with him
17 at dinner one evening and really suggested that his resources
18 would be better spent doing something creative around part IV.
19 One of the secondary sources that came out subsequent to
20 our new policies was a book which compares the Gospels and The
21 Urantia Book, kind of passage by passage or story by story by a
22 fellow named Larry Weylan, and it was a very nicely-done book.
23 It kind of gives you a sense of how The Urantia Book and the
24 Gospels compare. So, I suggested to Harry, "That's just a
25 wonderful thing that Lawrence Weylan has done and why don't you
00562 { 4:32:06pm}
01 do something similar?" Harry, again, his attitude was
02 antagonistic. That he would use all of his resources to see
03 that this book came forward, and that if we did in some fashion
04 step up in favor of the copyright, he would meet us in court.
05 Q. Are you familiar with a book called Paramony by Duane Faw?
06 A. Dwayne Faw is one of my very good friends. It's a
07 wonderful book.
08 Q. Can you tell the jury what the purpose of Paramony is?
09 A. Duane is a retired general in the Marine Corps, and he's a
10 Methodist. And Dwayne, at one point, I think back in the '70s
11 or early '80s, wanted to compare the Gospel passages with
12 passages from The Urantia Book, so he did what's called a
13 paramony, which is the parallel passages in harmony, that are
14 in harmony between The Urantia Book and the Gospels.
15 Q. And how many quotes or paraphrases from biblical passages
16 are actually present in The Urantia Book?
17 A. Well, you held up the book and you can hold it up again.
18 It's very thick. As The Urantia Book indicates, in the body of
19 the text, much of The Urantia Book is derived from secondary
20 sources. Probably the largest secondary source in The Urantia
21 Book is the Bible itself.
22 Q. Are you aware of any other sources?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Other than the Bible?
25 A. I'm aware of a few.
00563 { 4:33:41pm}
01 Q. Have you done any side-by-side comparing?
02 A. Yes, I have. There's a fellow named Sumner who is a
03 professor at Yale in the early part of the century and he was
04 regarded as called the father of sociology. I got a hold of
05 this book and if you look at the table of contents and you look
06 at the material in the book, it's very similar to many aspects
07 in part III of the book, especially the sections on marriage
08 and on early civilization. Again, he was the father of
09 sociology, so many of his ideas were very popular in America at
10 the time, and they're still very popular.
11 Q. Any other sources other than Sumner and the Bible?
12 A. There's a fellow named Henry Nelson Weyman. You may be
13 familiar with the name of Houston Smith. By his marriage,
14 Henry Nelson Weyman was a grandfather and Henry Nelson Weyman
15 was a very popular philosopher and psychologist in the early
16 part of the century and he wrote a book called Normative
17 Psychology. Many of the sections in the third part again
18 having to do with religion, philosophy and science, you can
19 find in Henry Nelson Weyman.
20 Q. Now, when you say you can find, are you saying that these
21 are -- that there are lengthy passages that are side by side or
22 exactly alike?
23 A. The image I prefer to use is a quilt. What the authors of
24 The Urantia Book did is they took the best thoughts that were
25 available in psychology and religion and philosophy and they
00564 { 4:35:21pm}
01 took these thoughts from these various secondary sources and
02 they quilted them together to make a patchwork quilt.
03 For instance, there's a section from Bertrand Russell, who
04 is a very famous philosopher in the early part of the century,
05 and it comes from a passage or essay that he wrote called A
06 Free Man's Worship. It's not the same passage but if you read
07 the passage in Urantia Book and then you read Bertrand
08 Russell's passage in Free Man's Worship, you can see that it's
09 the same sense, the same flavor.
10 Q. And is that also true of the Weyman work --
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. -- for example?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Do you know whether The Fellowship is presently preparing
15 to publish The Urantia Book in anticipation of the outcome of
16 this case?
17 A. If the copyright is invalidated, I have no doubt that The
18 Fellowship will engage in publication and distribution of the
19 book.
20 MR. HILL: Thank you. I don't have any other
21 questions.
22 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
24
25
00565 { 4:36:49pm}
01 CROSS-EXAMINATION
02 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
03 Q. Okay?
04 A. Hi.
05 Q. Sir, you are here today representing The Foundation?
06 A. I'm a trustee of Urantia Foundation.
07 Q. The answer to my question is yes?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And you are here with the interest, the prime interest in
10 seeing that this copyright and these trademarks are upheld; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. All right. Did you ever have a different view of the
14 copyright?
15 A. During the days of Martin Myers, if you can imagine a
16 Stalinist figure running The Foundation, I was concerned as to
17 whether or not The Urantia Foundation could carry out its
18 trust, and so I was concerned about the kind of power that was
19 being wielded by, in particular, Martin Myers, and its ability
20 to do what it was told to do. So, for that reason, I felt that
21 perhaps having the copyright in public domain might be
22 beneficial in the long-term, again, so long as Martin Myers was
23 running the show.
24 Q. When was the Maaherra litigation?
25 A. It was the early '90s. I believe Judge Urbom's decision
00566 { 4:38:28pm}
01 was early '95.
02 Q. And what was your status with respect to the Urantia
03 movement in that range of time?
04 A. At that time I was chair of the fraternal relations
05 committee.
06 Q. Of --
07 A. The fraternal relations committee.
08 Q. Of which organization?
09 A. Of The Fellowship.
10 Q. And when did you become a member of the board of trustees
11 of The Urantia Foundation?
12 A. Richard called me in January of 1998.
13 Q. And you went on the board shortly thereafter?
14 A. Shortly thereafter.
15 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that you contributed to the Maaherra
16 defense fund?
17 A. I contributed to the Maaherra defense fund because of
18 J. J. Johnson who I felt was unjustly -- unjustly accused by
19 Urantia Foundation.
20 Q. The answer to the question is yes, you did?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And what was the effect of your contribution to the
23 defense fund of Maaherra? She was trying to essentially have
24 the Court determine that the copyright was invalid; is that
25 correct?
00567 { 4:39:34pm}
01 A. Correct.
02 Q. And you provided financial support for that effort? Yes
03 or no.
04 A. No.
05 Q. You did contribute to her defense fund?
06 A. No, I contributed to J. J. Johnson. I restricted those
07 monies, which you can do with a charitable organization, and I
08 asked that those funds be directed to J. J. Johnson.
09 Q. Did your funds support -- Isn't it true that those funds
10 supported the Maaherra effort?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Now, you indicated that at one time you were in view -- of
13 the view that the best perhaps position for The Foundation to
14 pursue its work under its charter would be that this copyright
15 be in the public domain; is that what you said?
16 A. With the leadership of Martin Myers, I felt concerned
17 about the work of The Urantia Foundation as a trust.
18 Q. And that would have been a situation where The Foundation
19 would then have to determine whether or not uses made of the
20 copyright were such that it would trigger a reaction to them?
21 A. I'm not sure I follow your question.
22 Q. All right. Let me start over again.
23 In the public domain, we're talking about anybody can do
24 anything with respect to the publication of that book.
25 A. Anybody can do anything once it's in the public domain.
00568 { 4:41:04pm}
01 Q. All right. And that would include the publication of
02 Jesus - A New Revelation?
03 A. Correct.
04 Q. Do you recall a meeting in Beaver Creek, Colorado with
05 you, Mr. Siegel and Mr. McMullan discussing precisely the
06 publication of part IV?
07 A. No, sir, I don't.
08 Q. You deny that meeting took place?
09 A. I just don't recall it.
10 Q. You do not recall a meeting -- let me ask it again -- in
11 Beaver Creek, Colorado that involved you, involved Mr. McMullan
12 and Mr. Siegel about which the precise subject was a discussion
13 of the publication of this book?
14 A. I apologize. I don't remember the meeting.
15 Q. All right. Fair enough.
16 You do recall Mr. Siegel being very enthusiastic about
17 this book; correct?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. And its publication in the very form that it sits in front
20 of you?
21 A. I don't recall him being excited about this cover or the
22 way in which this book was put forth, but I do recall that he
23 was excited about the idea of part IV being separately printed.
24 Q. And for what reason?
25 A. Well, there was a feeling, and I know Harry shares this
00569 { 4:42:21pm}
01 feeling, that the gospel of Jesus is the most transformative
02 message on the face of the planet, so the feeling was to get
03 that gospel out in as pure a form as possible would be helpful
04 to the dissemination of the teachings.
05 Q. And that view was expressed by Mr. Siegel at what point in
06 time?
07 A. I believe -- I believe he was talking with Harry in '94,
08 '95, thereabouts.
09 Q. Was that before he went on The Foundation board?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And your comments about placing that -- placing The
12 Urantia Book in the -- what did you call it, the common --
13 A. You called it the public domain.
14 Q. Public domain. That view was expressed by you before you
15 went on The Foundation?
16 A. While Martin Myers was president.
17 Q. All right. You had mentioned that there was some
18 antagonism going on and you mentioned that -- I used the word
19 "despot" to describe him the other day and Mr. Keeler, I think,
20 agreed with the characterization. He was a man that would not
21 let the books be sold to certain people?
22 A. Yes. He put a restriction on certain people. He also
23 restricted the channels of distribution so that distributors
24 were not being used.
25 Q. Did he have a dossier on you?
00570 { 4:43:57pm}
01 A. He never showed me the dossier but I suspect he did.
02 Q. Did he have a dossier on Mr. McMullan?
03 A. The only dossier I ever saw was the one on Duane Faw who
04 wrote that book called Paramony. Again, Duane is a wonderful
05 person.
06 Q. And it was true, in addition to his rather -- not his,
07 rather, but his restrictive views about who should be given
08 access to the book, he also controlled access, did he not, to
09 the various Foundation meetings where he declared certain
10 people would not be admitted to those meetings?
11 A. I don't have any knowledge of that.
12 Q. That's new information to you?
13 A. That's new information to me.
14 Q. Do you recall a meeting that occurred in, I believe, North
15 Carolina in which people whose views he didn't agree with, he
16 asked and had and were told to leave the meeting?
17 A. I don't recall that meeting.
18 Q. Do you deny that took place?
19 A. I just don't recall that. I don't recall the meeting.
20 Q. Okay. Now, is there anything wrong with The Fellowship
21 office being in Oklahoma City, getting free rent?
22 A. The aspect of it that concerned me was Harry's anger
23 toward Urantia Foundation, and that that kind of anger, as much
24 as Martin Myers was angry about The Fellowship, could reverse
25 itself and be located in The Fellowship and that that kind of
00571 { 4:45:33pm}
01 control could be concentrated with one person. That concerned
02 me. So I wasn't in favor of moving the offices.
03 Q. I understand you weren't in favor of it but is there
04 anything wrong with free rent in Oklahoma?
05 A. Yes, I do believe, because it's not just about free rent.
06 It's about who's actually operating The Fellowship and how
07 decisions are being made and whether or not they're being made
08 democratically.
09 Q. Mr. McMullan was never in favor of changing the method by
10 which the decisions were made in The Fellowship, was he?
11 A. Not that I recall.
12 Q. So, there is a procedure by virtue of which decisions are
13 made at levels in The Fellowship?
14 A. There is.
15 Q. And doesn't that procedure assure that the decision is
16 made in a democratic sense?
17 A. Not necessarily. There's an executive director at the
18 Fellowship as there is an executive director at The Foundation
19 and both of those individuals wield quite a bit of power.
20 Q. This lady over here?
21 A. Tonia Baney.
22 Q. Okay. And she wields that power?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. That person, whomever it is in The Fellowship, would wield
25 the same power?
00572 { 4:46:49pm}
01 A. Yes, sir.
02 Q. And they would do it whether they were in Oakland,
03 California, or Minneapolis or Oklahoma City?
04 A. Again, my concern was Harry's anger and his antagonism
05 toward Urantia Foundation.
06 Q. My question is, sir: That person who wields that power
07 and has that big stick can wield it in Boston, Dallas, Texas or
08 Oklahoma City; is that correct?
09 A. That is correct.
10 Q. All right. Now, I'd like, sir, --
11 MR. ABOWITZ: We lost our document person. It's
12 142. It has already been admitted.
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Sir, this is already part of the record
14 in this case. I sympathize with your glass problem but --
15 A. It's here?
16 Q. Yeah. Can you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may we turn that monitor
19 around a little bit?
20 THE COURT: Sure. Sure.
21 A. Pull it forward?
22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You can get closer to it. I'm trying to
23 get it --
24 THE COURT: You'll have to be a bit of the
25 contortionist because you have to keep in mind that you have to
00573 { 4:48:32pm}
01 speak loudly enough into the microphone that this court
02 reporter can hear you and that I can hear you, and that's the
03 chore because I don't hear all that well.
04 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
05 A. I can see it and then I'll respond into the mike.
06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You can see it all right?
07 A. Yes.
08 Q. Do you recognize that as the first page of a talk that
09 was given by you in Helsinki, Finland?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And the occasion was what?
12 A. There was an international conference in Helsinki, Finland
13 that year.
14 Q. And you took that opportunity, did you not, to address the
15 publication of Jesus - A New Revelation?
16 A. Among other things, yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. Let me show you the text on page 2 of your
18 address. Can you see that?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. And you used the analogy of the cutting the Mona Lisa in
21 quarters.
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. And your view, is it correct, expressed at that time in
24 that address, was that if you used Urantia Book as the Mona
25 Lisa, cutting out one part of the Jesus papers would ruin the
00574 { 4:49:55pm}
01 entire work, essentially?
02 A. Yes. All four parts are connected.
03 Q. And it's a unified work, in your view?
04 A. It's a unified work.
05 Q. And should be addressed as such?
06 A. Yes, sir.
07 Q. And you further go through an example of your son,
08 Michael, who enjoys puzzles and you pose an interesting
09 conundrum, how you put the puzzle together if you deprive him
10 of 25 percent of the pieces.
11 A. Right. There are aspects to part IV that you can't
12 understand without the other three parts.
13 Q. And were you here when Mr. -- no, you weren't. I'm sorry.
14 There's an index in Jesus - A New Revelation; is that
15 correct?
16 A. You know, I haven't seen it in a while but I think there
17 was something in the back.
18 Q. Did you read that book?
19 A. No, sir.
20 Q. Have you examined it?
21 A. Harry sent me a copy and I looked at it briefly.
22 Q. Now, there was a time that Mr. McMullan asked for your
23 assistance with the board of trustees in this question about
24 whether there would be attribution for The Foundation in the
25 Jesus - A New Revelation. Do you recall that?
00575 { 4:51:21pm}
01 A. Yeah. Harry, I believe, sent me an e-mail that asked
02 whether or not we wanted our name associated with the
03 publication of this work.
04 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have a minute to get that, Judge?
05 THE COURT: What is the exhibit number?
06 MR. ABOWITZ: The exhibit is 22, Your Honor. It's
07 already in evidence.
08 THE COURT: Go ahead.
09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you see that, Mr. Jameson?
10 A. Yes, I can.
11 Q. Do I have to fiddle with it or can you see it?
12 A. No, I think I've got it. If you're referring to certain
13 sections, let me know.
14 Q. Yeah, okay, sure.
15 Let me address your response to Mr. McMullan's query. You
16 say, "We're making progress but it takes time." What did you
17 mean by that comment?
18 A. Well, as I indicated, Urantia Foundation had sort of an
19 antagonistic attitude toward The Fellowship in the early '90s
20 and I felt like the ice was thawing and that we were making
21 progress in terms of developing a new understanding, a new
22 chapter in the relationships between the organizations.
23 Q. Well, in fact, Mr. McMullan was trying to reach some
24 accommodation with The Foundation on that issue, wasn't he?
25 A. What are you referring to?
00576 { 4:53:20pm}
01 Q. The purpose for the e-mail in the first instance.
02 A. No, I believe if you read earlier, I say, "Your
03 presumption is correct, that we want nothing to do with the
04 publication of this book."
05 Q. No, no, no. What was the purpose for Mr. McMullan's
06 inquiry of you, the initial one?
07 A. He was suggesting in this inquiry that since he hadn't
08 heard from me, he assumed that we didn't want our name
09 associated with this book and I said, "Your presumption is
10 correct."
11 Q. Right. But his earlier attempt at this was to make some
12 accommodation with The Foundation; isn't that correct?
13 A. I don't know how you would define "accommodation" when
14 somebody steals a portion of a copyright.
15 Q. He was trying to make some accommodation with The
16 Foundation in this series of correspondence; is that correct?
17 A. I wouldn't define that as an accommodation. I would
18 define it as an attack on the copyright of The Urantia Book.
19 Q. Well, it's a copyright that was attacked in the Maaherra
20 case and it's a copyright that at one time you thought should
21 have been in the public domain; is that correct?
22 A. That one time was in the public domain.
23 Q. All right. And it was, when it was in the public domain,
24 where you thought it should be; is that correct?
25 A. No.
00577 { 4:54:43pm}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have, Your Honor.
02 THE COURT: Redirect, if any?
03 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
04 BY MR. HILL:
05 Q. Can you explain why you felt that J. J. Johnson was worthy
06 of your support in the Maaherra litigation?
07 A. Well, I felt that Kristen Maaherra was the one that
08 actually initiated the attack on the copyright and that J. J.
09 Johnson was merely sitting on the side but he was close enough
10 to be pulled into the lawsuit and I had been told that he had
11 had to expend personal funds on the order of about $5,000, so I
12 think somewhere between 1,000 and $1,500 I sent to the Asoka
13 Foundation asking that it be directed to J. J. Johnson.
14 Q. And was Mr. Johnson eventually dropped out of that
15 lawsuit?
16 A. He was, with an apology, I believe.
17 Q. An apology from Urantia Foundation?
18 A. From Urantia Foundation.
19 Q. And in all of the conversations or writings that you had
20 with Mr. McMullan regarding his offer to mention Urantia
21 Foundation as the publisher of Jesus - A New Revelation, did he
22 ever offer to give a copyright notice?
23 A. Never.
24 MR. HILL: No more questions.
25 THE COURT: Recross?
00578 { 4:56:21pm}
01 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
02 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
03 Q. Did you ever ask for one?
04 A. No, sir.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
06 THE COURT: You may step down, sir. You'll be
07 excused.
08 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
09 THE COURT: Gentlemen, let's recess for the evening.
10 Is that all right?
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Fine with us, Judge.
12 THE COURT: Do you have any crucial witnesses that
13 you need to put on today, counselor? I guess that's what I'm
14 asking.
15 MR. HILL: I'm going to --
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I've got one witness.
17 THE COURT: Pardon?
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I've got one witness here today.
19 My concern is we have a number of witnesses tomorrow that are
20 leaving in the evening, early evening tomorrow and flying out,
21 and we could probably do that but we'll have -- it will take me
22 20 minutes on direct at the tops. I know I went over my hour
23 last time but I assure you this will be fairly short.
24 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Would you rather go
25 on this afternoon with him and work late or would you rather I
00579 { 4:57:18pm}
01 check with the jury to see if they could come in a little
02 earlier in the morning and start earlier?
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes, that would be fine.
04 THE COURT: Let me inquire. First, let me ask:
05 Would it work any great hardship on any of the jurors if we
06 worked another 30 minutes or 40 minutes this afternoon? I'll
07 ask that question. If you would, just raise your hand.
08 Now then, the second question is: Would it work any great
09 hardship on you if we came in at, say, 8:15 in the morning and
10 started to work? Anybody have any particular problems with
11 that?
12 Now, let me have a show of hands. Which would you prefer
13 to do, work 30, 45 minutes this afternoon, raise your hand.
14 All right. That answers it.
15 We'll go ahead and call your witness at this time.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Democracy.
17 THE COURT: That's about as democratic as we get in
18 court.
19 MR. HILL: Your Honor, we need a short recess for a
20 restroom break.
21 THE COURT: Need to take a break, five-minute break?
22 MR. HILL: Just enough time to do that.
23 THE COURT: We'll do that. Ladies and gentlemen,
24 let's take a five-minute recess. Be back at 5 o'clock and
25 we'll resume then.
00580 { 4:58:53pm}
01 Everyone please stand.
02 Court is in recess.
03 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
04 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
05 THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, Rob Davis.
08 THE COURT: Raise your right hand and be sworn, sir.
09 (WITNESS SWORN)
10 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, IV,
11 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
12 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
13 THE COURT: Be seated here and speak into the
14 microphone and I'll ask you to state your full name and spell
15 your last name for the jury and for the court record, please.
16 THE WITNESS: My full name and spell my last name?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. I haven't said this in a long
19 time. Robert Lee Davis, IV. My last name is spelled
20 D-A-V-I-S.
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
23 Q. Mr. Davis, would you tell the jury a little bit about
24 yourself.
25 A. Well, yes. I was born in Nashville, Tennessee and I grew
00581 { 5:06:06pm}
01 up there. I went to college at George Peabody College at
02 Vanderbilt University. I am married now almost 22 years. I
03 have two children -- my wife and I have two children, a boy and
04 a girl. My son is 18, our daughter is 16. We live in --
05 outside -- in Montclair, New Jersey, outside of New York City.
06 I've worked in the book business for almost 20 years, the last
07 12 of it working with Cambridge University Press.
08 THE COURT: Are you able to hear him all right,
09 ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
10 You can't hear him very well?
11 A JUROR: Not very well.
12 THE COURT: Pull that microphone just a little
13 closer, if you will.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. Is that better?
15 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Tell the jury a little bit about
16 Cambridge University Press.
17 A. Cambridge University Press was chartered in 1534 by King
18 Henry the VIIIth, a well known figure in western history
19 anyway. We publish and have continuously published books since
20 1584. Currently, we produce approximately 1,500 titles a year,
21 and then we also publish quite a range of academic journals.
22 Q. Do you publish any books on -- well, with regard to the
23 topic of religion or philosophy or books of that nature?
24 A. Oh, yes. We publish in every field of academic inquiry.
25 Religious studies and philosophy, particularly philosophy is
00582 { 5:07:50pm}
01 one of our strongest parts of our list.
02 Q. And how long, again, have you worked in the book industry?
03 A. Actually about a little over 17 years.
04 Q. Do you have any knowledge regarding sales and distribution
05 in the book industry?
06 A. Oh, yes. That's my principal responsibility.
07 Q. Why don't we tell the jury a little bit about the book
08 industry and players. Can you tell the jury what a distributor
09 is?
10 A. A distributor is -- serves as an aggregator in the book
11 industry, a source for book shops, for instance, your corner
12 book shop that might order a book without having to order
13 directly from the publisher because it's more efficient, you
14 might say, it's more economical to order many books from one
15 source than, you know, the same number of books from multiple
16 sources. So, that's the principal role of a distributor in the
17 book business.
18 Q. Are there -- how is the book -- how are distributors in
19 the industry, are there some major distributors in the
20 industry?
21 A. Yes. The book business has changed a bit dramatically in
22 the past 10 years. There are now really just a few key
23 players. And as far as book distributors for the retail trade,
24 there would be two key book distributors.
25 Q. Would you name them for the jury, please.
00583 { 5:09:32pm}
01 A. Baker and Taylor, and Ingram Book Company.
02 Q. All right. Now that we know what a distributor is, can
03 you tell the jury what a publisher is?
04 A. Yes. A publisher is the organization that in many cases
05 might commission a book. We would be responsible for securing
06 the copyright, for producing the book, and presenting it to the
07 larger book trade.
08 Q. Is there any relationship or interaction between
09 publishers and distributors?
10 A. Oh, yes. We're partners in the larger distribution
11 network and we cultivate, you know, the best possible relations
12 with these key businesses.
13 Q. Are you familiar with The Urantia Book?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. What about the industry generally?
16 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't understand that question,
17 Judge. Is he familiar with the industry?
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Let me rephrase.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.
20 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Based on your knowledge of the
21 industry, is The Urantia Book known in the industry?
22 A. Are you talking about in the book business as a general
23 industry as it were?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Yes, it is known. It's a very widely-sold book, and it
00584 { 5:11:01pm}
01 sells pretty well. I mean, as far as book dealers are
02 concerned, they know it because of that.
03 Q. Is The Urantia Book equated with any particular source in
04 the industry?
05 A. Well, yes. Anybody that has ever ordered The Urantia
06 Book, aside from ordering it directly from a distributor, would
07 have ordered it from The Urantia Foundation. But even if they
08 were acquiring the books from a book distributor, on the
09 distributor's databases, for instance, when they're looking up
10 the title, the publisher is always listed. So it would be
11 nearly impossible not to recognize The Urantia Foundation as
12 the publisher of The Urantia Book.
13 And then, even more so, the American Book Sellers
14 Association produces a handbook and it's the only -- it's an
15 industry trade standard that if you were going into the book
16 business, you would acquire this binder basically that tells
17 you key information about every publisher that you could
18 possibly deal with, including their name, address, phone
19 number, web sites, the discount schedule that they might offer
20 you, the return policies they would afford, because in the book
21 business books can be returned if they're not sold.
22 Q. Based on these industry lists and that trade standard list
23 you discussed, is there any recognition in the book industry in
24 connection -- connecting The Urantia Book with Urantia
25 Foundation?
00585 { 5:12:34pm}
01 A. Yes, as the book publisher. Also, I think, just because
02 it's a bit unusual for a book publisher to publish one title
03 and, therefore, because there is recognition of the success of
04 The Urantia Book, I think it would be fair to say that there's
05 a larger recognition for The Urantia Foundation as the
06 publisher because most consumers honestly don't think about the
07 book publisher when you buy a book. But if that book has an
08 increasingly prominent role in your business, then you might
09 take note of the source of it.
10 Q. Do you have any familiarity with the sales of The Urantia
11 Book? And I don't mean last year or the year before. I mean
12 generally.
13 A. Oh, yes, I do. I'm familiar with the sales pattern.
14 Q. Does your familiarity extend to any particular time frame?
15 A. Oh, yes. I'm familiar with the sales pattern over the
16 course of the entire life of The Urantia Book.
17 Q. How would you describe the sales pattern of The Urantia
18 Book?
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me, Your Honor. This is a
20 solicitation of an opinion and this man was not listed as an
21 expert.
22 THE COURT: Overruled. I believe I'll let him
23 testify.
24 A. I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question?
25 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Sure, if I can remember it.
00586 { 5:14:04pm}
01 Tell the jury a little bit about the --
02 A. Sales pattern over the course?
03 Q. Sure.
04 A. Well, yes. Honestly, I've never seen and I don't know of
05 any book that has enjoyed such an enviable growth in sales
06 published over the course of 50 years, or a little over 50
07 years, and especially one that has seen that kind of sales
08 growth without any consumer advertising. It's a very enviable
09 picture.
10 Q. Now, you're not telling the jury that The Urantia Book
11 outsells the latest John Grisham book?
12 A. No. Make no mistake, I'm taking about a sales pattern,
13 not a sales figure. Every year, as we all know, there are
14 blockbuster bestsellers, but the thing is, if you think about
15 those, can you remember the one that occurred two or three
16 years ago? The point is that these books that we're all
17 familiar with that are the most prominent part of our popular
18 culture sell very well in the year of their release and they
19 might even have a movie made after them but after that they
20 sort of -- the culture moves on to the next big best seller.
21 But what you don't see is a steady growing and demand for a
22 book over the course of 50 years. Honestly, I just don't know
23 of any other book like it.
24 Q. So --
25 THE COURT: Let me ask a question here. What about
00587 { 5:15:40pm}
01 the Oxford English Dictionary?
02 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Well, you know, we almost
03 published that.
04 THE COURT: You do?
05 THE WITNESS: Yes -- no. We turned that one down.
06 That was one of our great sadnesses.
07 THE COURT: How does it stand in published editions
08 compared to any other book? Well, the Bible, for instance. Is
09 the King James Version of the Bible a heavily published and
10 sold book?
11 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Yes, the King James
12 Version of the Bible.
13 Well, let me ask you a question first. The Oxford English
14 Dictionary, that's somewhat unique. The sales are what we call
15 in the industry the O-E-D, just to make it short, but those are
16 steady sales. It's a very large book and very expensive.
17 There is a compact edition. And when Oxford reintroduced a new
18 compact edition about five or six years ago, it was a bit more
19 compact and had a bit more of a high-tech magnifying glass
20 which was necessary to read it, they experienced a peak in
21 sales, and they're always promoting it because it's a staple
22 item, yes.
23 But I would say that the sales pattern though is not one
24 that shows what would be, like if you were interested in the
25 stock market, would be a highly enviable chart reflecting
00588 { 5:17:07pm}
01 increasing demand over the long, you know, term, over each
02 year.
03 THE COURT: Appreciate it. I didn't mean to distract
04 you. Go ahead.
05 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, no, I enjoyed it. Thank
06 you for your question.
07 Okay. Where were we?
08 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) If I can contrast what you and Your
09 Honor were talking about. The Oxford English Dictionary might
10 have a sales pattern of this and it might always be higher than
11 The Urantia Book. I don't ask you that as a fact, but, I mean,
12 it will have a sales pattern something like that while The
13 Urantia Book is at a sales pattern basically like this.
14 A. Yes, but even last year's sales, I don't know if Oxford --
15 I shouldn't say -- but I don't know if Oxford could say that
16 they sold 50,000 copies of the O-E-D, especially the full
17 version.
18 That's a book that, Your Honor, has a special place in
19 library collections because of its expense and the sheer size
20 of it. The compact edition would be for the consumer market.
21 But, even still, you know, it would be an enviable thing to
22 have sold 40,000 copies of that.
23 THE COURT: Go ahead.
24 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Does this sales pattern you're
25 talking about for The Urantia Book, does it give you any
00589 { 5:18:22pm}
01 indication of future sales?
02 A. Well, yes. I mean, it points towards a very positive
03 outlook just simply in regards to the sales potential of The
04 Urantia Book, given the emerging worldwide market which we're
05 seeing now increasingly in the book trade.
06 Q. Are you familiar -- I don't know if this is a term used in
07 the book industry but it's a common term: compete. Can you
08 tell me are there such things as competitive books?
09 A. Oh, by all means, yes. I mean, there are always -- every
10 book has a competitor. Oftentimes, you know, that's something
11 that will be compared to it and will be competing on the shelf
12 for its space. So, yes, certainly.
13 Q. Are you familiar with Jesus - A New Revelation?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. Is that Jesus - A New Revelation right there?
16 A. Right. Yes.
17 Q. Do you consider JANR -- based on your experience in the
18 industry, do you consider Jesus - A New Revelation to be a
19 competing book with The Urantia Book?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: That's pure opinion, Judge.
21 THE COURT: And I think he's qualified sufficiently
22 to answer --
23 MR. ABOWITZ: He has not been listed.
24 THE COURT: -- and offer his opinion. The objection
25 is overruled. You may go ahead.
00590 { 5:19:45pm}
01 A. So the question is: Is this, in my view, a competing book
02 on the bookshelf for bookshelf space?
03 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Yes.
04 A. By all means, yes. Clearly -- I mean, you've seen -- I
05 don't need to hold these books up; you've seen them probably.
06 But this book that Harry McMullan has printed is a large --
07 probably the largest single portion of The Urantia Book. I've
08 seen the price list that he developed and, you know, it should
09 be cheaper, it's smaller, but, as you can well imagine, it's a
10 much more familiar story than the rest of The Urantia Book,
11 which is somewhat, to many people, a bit difficult, if not
12 perhaps just an arcane work, whereas, the story of Jesus is
13 about as compelling a story as one can imagine.
14 Therefore, clearly in a book store environment where there
15 are books competing more and more so for physical shelf space,
16 inventory turn, which is a key factor in evaluating if you were
17 a book dealer whether you should reorder a book, not because
18 you love it or you don't, but because it actually sells, and
19 you had something competing, you or perhaps people would be
20 more inclined to pick up a cheaper, smaller, more accessible
21 part of a larger perhaps more difficult book, it doesn't really
22 take much -- you know, you don't have to be a rocket scientist
23 to figure out that quite easily it could displace this Urantia
24 Book on the bookshelf. It's just a -- it's a fact of, you
25 know, the struggle, the competitive nature for shelf space in
00591 { 5:21:46pm}
01 book stores.
02 Q. Now, whether it would replace the book or not, certainly
03 sales of Urantia Book may suffer if Jesus - A New Revelation is
04 sold?
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, we're going to object.
06 That's speculation.
07 THE COURT: Overruled. He can express an opinion.
08 A. Yes, my opinion. Well, clearly it could suffer, yes,
09 because if you had written a book and a large part of it was
10 somewhat difficult but you used -- or a portion of it was a
11 very concrete illustration of some difficult material that you
12 had spent a lot of time developing and somebody came along and
13 said, "Well, you know, if you just cut off this part, we could
14 sell a lot of that," but, you know, if you valued the other
15 part of it as an author, you would regret the work that you had
16 put into the rest of the book being basically ignored by this,
17 you know, more commercial sort of prospect.
18 Q. Let's change subjects.
19 A. Uh-huh.
20 Q. Do you have an understanding, based on your experience in
21 the industry -- and when I say "industry," I mean book
22 industry --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- what the term "fair use" means? I don't want a legal
25 definition, but if you know from your experience, please share
00592 { 5:23:06pm}
01 it with the jury.
02 A. Oh, certainly, because fair use is what all of publishing
03 is predicated upon in some way. We all, as book publishers,
04 observe and are careful to make fair use and define it very
05 clearly. It varies from publisher to publisher how they would
06 administer the extension of rights or the use of a part of a
07 text in another book depending upon its use, whether it was for
08 educational purposes, in which case we would be very generous,
09 more generous than we would if it was a commercial use part of
10 the book.
11 Generally, though, if it's for another book that could be
12 possibly competing with our own, we would consider charging for
13 even as little as a page, but certainly anything over a
14 chapter, we would definitely be charging because we would be
15 calculating then the possibility whether it's -- we don't know
16 but it's certainly possible that it could take away from the
17 sale of the book from which it's drawn. So, that's, to some
18 extent, the way we would evaluate that.
19 Q. Does Cambridge University Press have any standards of fair
20 use?
21 A. Yes, we have guidelines and we're flexible within those
22 guidelines. But it's all predicated upon use being made in
23 good faith, which is to say that, you know, if somebody came
24 and they wanted to use part of a book for a research paper,
25 that would be something that we would be very generous in
00593 { 5:24:54pm}
01 regards to supporting. If they wanted to use it in a competing
02 book, we would have a scale of assigning the value that we feel
03 that we should be compensated for for that fair use.
04 Q. And when you talk about a research paper, I think you used
05 -- as an example, what would be the limits of your generosity
06 regarding fair use?
07 MR. ABOWITZ: Show my objection to the word
08 "generosity."
09 THE COURT: I think we may be getting a little bit
10 stretching on the realm of expertise in this area.
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll move on. I'm almost done.
12 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Well, is what you described
13 generally similar throughout the book industry, with some
14 deviation, obviously?
15 A. Yes. Every publisher will have, you know, their own
16 policies, but, by and large, they would be following a similar
17 sort of approach because they have a vested interest in
18 protecting --
19 Q. If I told you that a publisher had a fair-use policy that
20 commercial use could be 5,000 words, noncommercial use could be
21 25,000 words, how would you feel about that policy?
22 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I object. That's clearly
23 outside --
24 THE COURT: All right. I don't think the question,
25 "How would you feel about it," but, "How does that compare to
00594 { 5:26:12pm}
01 others," I will permit an opinion in that regard.
02 MR. ABOWITZ: Please show my objection as outside the
03 scope of the designated testimony on the pretrial order.
04 THE COURT: Let the record so reflect.
05 A. So, in my opinion, how would that be characterized in
06 relation to other presses? I would characterize it as very
07 generous.
08 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) And do you know of any example in
09 the publishing industry where 1,000 pages -- well, 800 pages of
10 a 2000-plus-page book were copied verbatim, has anyone ever
11 considered that fair use, to your knowledge?
12 A. Absolutely not, no.
13 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm finished, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Cross, Mr. Abowitz?
15 MR. ABOWITZ: Why does everybody always want a drink
16 of water when I stand up?
17 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. It was a break moment,
18 it seemed like.
19 THE COURT: Total intimidation, Mr. Abowitz.
20 MR. ABOWITZ: I don't think so, Judge.
21 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
24 Q. My first question, sir, is a very serious one. How do I
25 get a discount on Cambridge Press books?
00595 { 5:27:41pm}
01 A. Oh, well, that's what everybody asks.
02 Q. Strike that. You don't have to respond to that, unless
03 there's a way I can get it.
04 A. Excuse me. All right.
05 Q. When -- strike that.
06 Who first approached you to come to court and testify
07 about the matters that you've discussed here today?
08 A. Who first approached me?
09 Q. Who, yes.
10 A. You know, I'm sorry, I don't know if it was -- there was
11 some general discussion initially. I think it might have
12 been -- I don't know if it was Tonia or one of the lawyers.
13 Honestly, I don't remember exactly because -- I'm sorry. I
14 don't know, honestly.
15 Q. Have you ever done this before?
16 A. No, I never have -- I've never appeared as a --
17 Q. Did you have a relationship with the person that first
18 contacted you to come here?
19 A. Unless it was one of the lawyers, and I don't think it
20 was. I think it was somebody that was a staff person at The
21 Urantia Foundation, but I could be wrong, honestly. But, yes,
22 if it were anybody other than the lawyers, because I didn't
23 know the lawyers before this event, but I do know, you know,
24 persons at The Foundation, you know, who are interested in this
25 book, yes.
00596 { 5:29:13pm}
01 Q. And how do you know them? Are you a Urantian?
02 A. I don't know what the term "Urantian" is referring to.
03 Q. Are you a reader of The Urantia Book?
04 A. Well, there again, I can say that honestly I have read
05 this book. I don't know that I would -- I'm not a member of
06 any organization associated with this book. And when you say
07 the word "reader," that to me is -- it's a loaded term, it
08 seems to me. I have read this book, yes.
09 Q. Why do you consider "reader" to be a loaded term?
10 A. Well, simply because it implies that I am reading this
11 book in some sort of a devotional sense.
12 Q. Well, I understand your discomfort like that.
13 Are you a reader of that book in a devotional sense? Let
14 me ask it that way.
15 A. No, I'm not.
16 Q. Are you a reader of that book in an academic sense?
17 A. I use it currently in reference only.
18 Q. In what sense?
19 A. Well, if I was referring to anything that I knew, based
20 upon having read this book, that had an interesting comment,
21 then I would refer to this book and refer to its contents, yes.
22 Q. What is your work? What do you do for Cambridge?
23 A. Well, I'm a senior account manager for Cambridge
24 University Press and my responsibility is managing those
25 businesses, those trading partners whose business extends to a
00597 { 5:30:58pm}
01 global arena. So, in other words, it's a few accounts that
02 constitute over 50 percent of our sales worldwide.
03 Q. How did you first become acquainted with the persons at
04 The Urantia Foundation?
05 A. The first acquaintance?
06 Q. Yes.
07 A. The first acquaintance was in approximately 1972 when I
08 went to The Urantia Foundation to inquire more about this book
09 and it was a lady best known as Christie, Emma Christensen, who
10 greeted me there.
11 Q. Have you ever been employed by The Urantia Foundation?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you maintained some acquaintanceship with members of
14 The Foundation since the early '70s?
15 A. Well, my acquaintance with anybody with The Urantia
16 Foundation, any staff person, has always been in and around
17 questions related to this book and its distribution, and for
18 whatever reason it seems to always come up at times when people
19 wonder about the copyright on this.
20 Q. And is it -- Were you compensated for your time coming
21 here today?
22 A. No, not that I'm aware of, no.
23 Q. You came from Montclair, New Jersey?
24 A. Yes. Yes, I did, right. I flew here.
25 Q. Did you buy your own plane fare ticket?
00598 { 5:32:36pm}
01 A. Well, The Urantia Foundation bought the plane ticket, but
02 because of the change of the schedule, we had to cancel that
03 ticket and buy another one at the last moment and I picked up
04 the tab for that one, yes, because otherwise I don't know
05 whether I'd be here.
06 Q. Are you going to be reimbursed for that?
07 A. If I asked for reimbursement, I'm sure that they would be
08 reimbursing me, yes. I haven't really discussed it with
09 anybody at this point because that happened only a few days
10 ago.
11 Q. With respect to your earlier comment about the fact that
12 The Urantia Book everybody knows is published by The Urantia
13 Foundation, were you aware that since you first made contact
14 with The Urantia Foundation, that there was, at one time,
15 another publisher of The Urantia Book?
16 A. Now, let me understand your question. You're saying since
17 I contacted The Urantia Foundation in 1972, you're asking if I
18 was ever aware that before that there was a --
19 Q. Let me start over again. I'm sorry for the confusion that
20 I've caused.
21 Since 1972, or whenever it was you first visited The
22 Urantia Foundation, --
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. -- are you aware that The Urantia Book has been published
25 by a publisher other than The Urantia Foundation?
00599 { 5:34:05pm}
01 A. Well, perhaps we need to define the word "publish." It
02 has been printed by others, yes.
03 Q. All right. That's a fair distinction. It has been
04 printed by others?
05 A. Right. In the context of contest over the copyright, yes,
06 it has been printed in the same way that this is.
07 Q. The term "Urantia Book" defines the book, it doesn't
08 define the source; isn't that correct?
09 A. I'm not sure what you're -- the question is: Does the
10 term -- the title "Urantia Book," are you saying does it define
11 the source?
12 Q. Let me put it more simply.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. When I say "Urantia Book" to you, that means the book; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Well, I tend to think of it as a collection of papers,
17 actually, and I prefer the term "Urantia Papers" personally
18 because "The Urantia Book" is -- basically, that's a title of a
19 book. So I tend to think otherwise. But that's my own
20 personal opinion.
21 Q. When I say "Urantia Book" to you, it means Urantia Papers?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. It does not mean Urantia Foundation; correct?
24 A. Oh, no, no.
25 Q. Okay. Now, your testimony here today about this
00600 { 5:35:29pm}
01 competition and everything else is premised on the fact that
02 there is a valid copyright on The Urantia Book that is
03 presently owned -- that would be owned by The Urantia
04 Foundation; is that correct?
05 A. It's premised on the fact that as far as I know it is a
06 valid copyright until a court of law rules otherwise.
07 Q. All right. And should this jury and this Court determine
08 that there is no copyright and it's in the public domain, the
09 public domain in this country equates to competition, doesn't
10 it?
11 A. The public domain is not the competition, no.
12 Q. Well, your testimony was that the Jesus - A New Revelation
13 would compete with The Urantia Book?
14 A. Well, that's if it were sitting on the shelf next to it,
15 yes, it could conceivably do that.
16 Q. And if there is no copyright protection, that's the name
17 of every business in this country, isn't it, is competition?
18 A. If there is no copyright, there would be no book, because
19 copyright defines the existence and identity of a book. That
20 is the very definition of what a book is, is what is defined
21 and protected by copyright.
22 Q. And without the copyright, people can publish -- there's
23 no protection and whatever passes for competition occurred; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Whatever passes for competition? There would be no
00601 { 5:37:13pm}
01 competition because there would be no book. In my -- you're
02 asking me -- I'm afraid I'm just having to respond to tell you
03 my opinion on that, and that is that competition is a function
04 of a marketplace, and copyright in regards to intellectual
05 property is the very structure within which fairness operates
06 in a marketplace in the realm of book publishing. It is
07 commonly understood that when a copyright expires, and if a
08 book actually survives that long, and there's a sustained
09 interest, yes, it falls into what's called public domain.
10 Public domain is inseparable from copyright. It is a part of
11 the copyright provision and protection, yes.
12 Q. If there is no copyright, the Michael Foundation or Murray
13 Abowitz, Mr. Davis, can compete against Urantia Foundation by
14 publishing what was formerly protected by a copyright; is that
15 right?
16 A. When copyright expires, yes, anyone may produce a part or
17 whole copy of the existing book.
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you. Have a safe trip back to
19 New Jersey.
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No questions.
21 THE COURT: You may step down. You may be excused.
22 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
23 THE COURT: Do you have any additional witnesses this
24 afternoon, counselor?
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No more.
00602 { 5:38:56pm}
01 THE COURT: Let's recess then until 9 o'clock in the
02 morning. Is that agreeable? All right.
03 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll be recessed until
04 9 o'clock. I'll have you back in the jury assembly room, if
05 you will, just prior to that time. I'll also remind you again
06 of my previous admonition not to discuss this case. It does
07 appear that this case will go over into next week. I can't
08 hazard a guess yet how far, but we'll be here probably Monday
09 and Tuesday, at least, next week. I mention that so you'll
10 have some idea of your plans.
11 Everyone please stand and remain standing until the jurors
12 clear the courtroom.
13 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE
14 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:)
15 THE COURT: How many witnesses do you plan to call,
16 Mr. Hill, tomorrow?
17 MR. HILL: I think we're going to try to call about
18 six, five or six.
19 THE COURT: Five or six?
20 MR. HILL: Yes. I've given the names to them.
21 THE COURT: Can you hazard a guess as to how many
22 additional witnesses you'll have after those five or six?
23 MR. HILL: If we can get to all of them tomorrow, we
24 should be able to wrap up on Monday or Tuesday morning at the
25 latest. We might have maybe three or four witnesses.
00603 { 5:40:08pm}
01 THE COURT: That's what I want to know. I think my
02 lawyer wants to work with you on an instructions conference
03 this afternoon, hopefully not past midnight.
04 I'll see y'all at 9 o'clock in the morning. Court's in
05 recess.
06 (THE EVENING RECESS WAS TAKEN)
07 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME IV)
08
09
10
00604 { 8:55:50am}
01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
02 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
03
04 MICHAEL FOUNDATION, INC.,
04
05 Plaintiff,
05
06 vs. CASE NO. CV-00-0885-W
06
07 URANTIA FOUNDATION, et al.,
07
08 Defendants.
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 HAD FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001
13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEE R. WEST, SENIOR JUDGE PRESIDING
13
14 JURY TRIAL - VOLUME IV OF VII
15
16
17
18
19 A P P E A R A N C E S
20 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. ROSS A. PLOURDE
20 MR. MURRAY E. ABOWITZ
21 Attorneys at Law
21 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
22
22 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. STEVEN G. HILL
23 MR. PETER SCHOENTHALER
23 MR. ERIC MAURER
24 MR. DOUG KERTSCHER
24 Attorneys at Law
25 Atlanta, Georgia
25
00605 { 8:55:50am}
01 INDEX OF VOLUME IV
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES (CONTINUED):
04 FRANCES WILLARD RUSHING
05 DIRECT (By Mr. Kertscher) ..................... 610
05 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 629
06 REDIRECT (By Mr. Kertscher) ................... 638
06 RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ...................... 641
07 FURTHER REDIRECT (By Mr. Kertscher) ........... 641
07 FURTHER RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) .............. 642
08 Witness Excused .................................... 642
08
09 KATHARINE HARRIES
10 DIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) .................. 643
10 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 666
11 REDIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ................ 668
11 RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ...................... 669
12 Witness Excused .................................... 669
12
13 MARY LOU HALES
13
14 DIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) .................. 671
14 Witness Excused .................................... 680
15
15 CAROLYN KENDALL
16
16 DIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) .................. 682
17 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 721
17 REDIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ................ 733
18 RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ...................... 737
18 Witness Sworn ...................................... 738
19
19 LESLIE TIBBALS
20
20 DIRECT (By Mr. Hill) .......................... 738
21 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 748
21 REDIRECT (By Mr. Hill) ........................ 750
22 RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ...................... 752
22 Witness Excused .................................... 753
23
24
25 (INDEX CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
00606 { 8:55:50am}
01 INDEX OF VOLUME IV (CONTINUED)
02 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES (CONTINUED):
04 TONIA K. BANEY
05 DIRECT (By Mr. Hill) .......................... 754
05 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 797
06
06 **********
07
07
08
08
09
09
00607 { 8:55:50am}
01 MORNING SESSION
02 FRIDAY JUNE 15, 2001
03 ---------------------------------------------------------------
04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
05 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
06 THE COURT: Be seated.
07 I understand that the attorneys wanted to go on the record
08 with regard to some measure of agreement that they've reached.
09 MR. HILL: I think so, if we can get Ross.
10 THE COURT: Can you proceed without Ross? I
11 understood you all wanted to go on the record briefly before
12 the jury came in with regard to some issues that you all might
13 have reached agreement on; is that correct?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: I think so.
15 MR. HILL: I think so, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Can we proceed without Ross?
17 MR. ABOWITZ: On that basis, we can.
18 MR. HILL: Could we approach?
19 THE COURT: Sure. Just stand right up here. The
20 jury is not present. If you don't mind, since the jury is not
21 here, we don't have to have a bench conference.
22 MR. HILL: Well, but they want -- they've asked for
23 confidentiality with respect to -- we don't have an actual
24 written --
25 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
00608 { 9:01:07am}
01 * * *
02 (A CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND THE COURT WAS HAD AT THE
03 BENCH REGARDING A CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT MATTER AND HAS BEEN
04 PREPARED SEPARATELY FOR COUNSEL AT THE COURT'S DIRECTION)
05 * * *
06 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
07 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
08 MR. HILL: Your Honor, I'd like to introduce you to
09 my partner, Doug Kertscher.
10 THE COURT: Okay. This is the missing partner?
11 MR. KERTSCHER: Yes, sir.
12 THE COURT: Finally showed up?
13 MR. KERTSCHER: Yes, sir. Finally here at last.
14 THE COURT: Glad to have you. Glad to have you.
15 Welcome to Oklahoma.
16 MR. HILL: He's going to put on Dr. Rushing this
17 morning.
18 THE COURT: Good. We made arrangements for our best
19 possible weather for you.
20 MR. KERTSCHER: Wonderful. I appreciate it.
21 Has there been any discussion about my presence to the
22 jury?
23 THE COURT: About what?
24 MR. KERTSCHER: About my presence.
25 THE COURT: We'll introduce you or I'll ask Mr. Hill
00609 { 9:01:55am}
01 to introduce you to the jury and then I'll authorize you to go
02 ahead and participate and conduct the examination.
03 MR. KERTSCHER: Thank you very much, Judge.
04 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Judge, we have one juror not
05 here yet.
06 THE COURT: One juror missing? Who is he?
07 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: One of the gentlemen.
08 (PAUSE)
09 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND
10 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:)
11 THE COURT: May I inquire if anything occurred during
12 the recess that would in any way prevent any of you from
13 continuing to serve as fair and impartial jurors in this case?
14 I gather not.
15 Call your next witness.
16 Oh, Mr. Hill, I believe you have a co-counsel to introduce
17 to the jurors at this time.
18 MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor. This is my partner, Doug
19 Kertscher. He's going to be putting on --
20 THE COURT: And he'll be --
21 MR. HILL: -- Dr. Rushing.
22 THE COURT: -- interrogating the first witness?
23 MR. HILL: Yes.
24 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
25 MR. KERTSCHER: Thank you, Your Honor. We'll call
00610 { 9:07:10am}
01 Dr. Francis Rushing.
02 THE COURT: Come up, if you will, sir, and raise your
03 right hand and be sworn.
04 (WITNESS SWORN)
05 FRANCES WILLARD RUSHING,
06 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
07 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
08 THE COURT: Be seated, sir.
09 I'll ask you to state your full name and spell your last
10 name for the jury.
11 THE WITNESS: All right, sir. My full name is
12 Frances Willard Rushing, R-U-S-H-I-N-G.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. KERTSCHER:
15 Q. Good morning, Dr. Rushing.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Could you please tell the jury your profession.
18 A. I'm an economist and a faculty member at Georgia State
19 University.
20 Q. Tell the jury briefly what classes you teach at Georgia
21 State University.
22 A. Well, principally, I teach the fundamental economic
23 courses in micro and macro economics. Currently, I'm also
24 teaching the micro-macro economics for managers which is an MBA
25 course for graduate students.
00611 { 9:08:37am}
01 Q. Tell the jury briefly your education and work history.
02 A. All right, sir. I went to public schools in Savannah,
03 Georgia. Then I went to the University of Georgia where I
04 received my bachelor's degree in economics. From there I went
05 to the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. In Chapel
06 Hill, I remained in residence for four years and then I went in
07 the Air Force. While I was there, I completed all my
08 requirements for my doctor of philosophy degree in the field of
09 economics.
10 At the time I left Chapel Hill, I had an obligation to the
11 United States Air Force, so I became an economist for the
12 Department of Defense for three years and then I took my first
13 academic position at the University of Georgia in 1968. I was
14 at the University of Georgia from 1968 to 1972 as an assistant
15 professor. Then I went to the college of William and Mary in
16 Williamsburg, Virginia as an associate professor. Then I went
17 to Georgia State University in 1974 as an associate professor
18 of economics. I was promoted to full professor in 1980. 1990,
19 I became -- held an endowed position of professor of private
20 enterprise.
21 Q. Are you a member of any professional associations?
22 A. Yes, I am. I've been a member of the American Economics
23 Association, the Southern Economic Association, the Western,
24 Economic Association, the Association of Private Enterprise
25 Educators, and Society of Economic Educators.
00612 { 9:10:05am}
01 Q. Have you been qualified as an expert witness in the field
02 of economics in other courts in the past 10 years?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. Have you been qualified as an economic expert in other
05 federal courts in the past 10 years?
06 A. Yes.
07 Q. With regard to the publishing industry, do you have any
08 specific experience in publishing books?
09 A. Specifically, on my curriculum vitae, I have published
10 five books, one of which was an economics textbook. The other
11 four were -- one was a very extended treatise on training
12 utilization of scientists and engineers. Two other edited
13 versions of topics dealing with economic development. And,
14 finally, the last volume, which just came out last year, the
15 chair of private enterprise which I hold or held at that time
16 published the volume, a collection of works dealing with issues
17 related to private enterprise in the 21st century.
18 So that experience -- all of those experiences put me in
19 touch with and under the guidance of the various publishers who
20 published those volumes, working with the editors and working
21 with the marketing people to market.
22 The last experience was more extensive in the sense that I
23 essentially had the responsibility for both putting the book
24 together, getting it published, and also doing the initial
25 phase of marketing until I turned it over to the marketing
00613 { 9:11:36am}
01 people.
02 Q. Is that called self-publishing?
03 A. Yes, it is, technically, since I held the ramsey chair and
04 the ramsey chair is the publisher for all practical purposes in
05 self-publishing.
06 Q. Okay. Have you been asked by my office to investigate the
07 economic impact the book Jesus - A New Revelation would have on
08 sales of The Urantia Book?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. Before we get into that, how many hours did you spend on
11 that project?
12 A. At this point, probably right around 20 hours or slightly
13 in excess of that.
14 Q. Okay. And for my next question, feel free to review
15 anything you have in front of you.
16 What documents did you review in performing this?
17 A. There were a number of documents that I reviewed in
18 preparing my analysis: the deposition of David Cantor; the
19 deposition of Harry McMullan, III; the exhibits from the
20 deposition of Harry McMullan, III; the mailer for Jesus - A New
21 Revelation; a mailer for The Urantia Book; Urantia Book order
22 forms; The Urantia Foundation worldwide consolidation itemized
23 sales report for July and August, 2000; Arthur Andersen's
24 Urantia Foundation affiliates combined financial statements as
25 of December 31, 1997 and 1996; printouts from some major book
00614 { 9:13:07am}
01 stores that carry The Urantia Book including Barnes & Noble,
02 Borders.com and Amazon.com. I also reviewed a declaration by
03 Gene Royer pertaining to the sale of The Urantia Book in France
04 during the year 1961.
05 In addition to that, I've reviewed some statistical
06 information published in the Statistical Abstract of the United
07 States and in the Bureau of the Census publication consumer
08 expenditure surveys.
09 I also had transmitted to me, I think, the initial order
10 for by Dickerson -- or quote by Dickerson press on the
11 publication of Jesus - A New Revelation mailer -- excuse me --
12 A New Revelation.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 Have you interviewed any persons in forming your opinions
15 here today?
16 A. Yes, I talked to three different publishers, personnel at
17 the publishers, most of whom were in marketing and some in --
18 or one in the publication side as well. Johann Press, Ingram
19 Book Group, and the Cambridge Press.
20 Q. Now, what economic theories did you employ to come to your
21 conclusions today with regard to the economic impact of Jesus -
22 A New Revelation on sales of The Urantia Book?
23 A. Okay. In economics, of course, we start out with theory.
24 The theory has evolved now over several centuries. The
25 fundamental element in any economic analysis really goes to the
00615 { 9:14:43am}
01 heart of supply-and-demand analysis. In this case, we were
02 essentially looking at demand. So the theory of demand, which
03 is the foundation stone of most economic analysis, lays out the
04 issue, and the issue is: what elements influence the demand for
05 any product, good, or service that might exist, and how might
06 that demand be altered over time as circumstances change? So,
07 you start out with that fundamental element.
08 In that element of demand, one component in determining
09 demand is that dealing with the goods. In particular, where
10 the goods are compliments or substitutes, one for the other,
11 because you get different kinds of reactions to a product
12 demand if you have new products come on line which compete with
13 the good that you're analyzing which would be quite different
14 from those which might come on line that might be complementary
15 goods to the one that you're analyzing.
16 Q. Well, could you tell the jury then a little bit, explain
17 to them a little bit what the difference is, if any, between
18 complementary goods and substitute goods.
19 A. Okay. Substitute goods are those that essentially one
20 would view as competitive. That is to say, those are
21 interchangeable terms, "substitute" and "competitive." You
22 would purchase one rather than the other, which is to say one
23 might buy a Coke rather than a Pepsi which would be competitive
24 goods. As we know, you go and make your choices. You have a
25 whole range. All of those soft drinks compete, one with the
00616 { 9:16:25am}
01 other, for your consumer dollar. You make a choice. It's
02 based on how much money you have, what your taste preference
03 might be for Coke or for Pepsi, let's say, and then you make
04 your determination and expend your dollar or two dollars,
05 depending on where you're buying it.
06 A complementary good, on the other hand, is a good which
07 is purchased and consumed jointly, which is to say if you were
08 a smoker, cigarette and matches are complementary goods. You
09 need a match to light a cigarette, so consuming a cigarette is
10 dependent upon a complementary good, the match, to light it.
11 In that sense, they provide value, one to the other, each being
12 consumed simultaneously but each providing value.
13 A second example would be a salad, raw salad, as we
14 sometimes have delivered to our tables at restaurants. We're
15 then asked what kind of salad dressing would we like to have
16 with it. Those are clearly complementary goods. Salad
17 dressing on salad, the notion being that salad dressings in
18 some way enhance the salad, so it adds value to the salad and
19 you can consume them jointly.
20 So, complementary goods are jointly each yielding value to
21 the other, whereas substitute or competitive goods are
22 either/or, you choose one or the other in the process of making
23 your consumer choice.
24 Q. Okay. This investigation of whether a good is a
25 complementary good or a substitute good, is that a common
00617 { 9:17:55am}
01 investigation in the economic field?
02 A. It's very common, as I just said. The theory of demand
03 pretty much dictates. For instance, in our courses, the one
04 I'm teaching now for managers of economics, we spend a great
05 deal of time essentially analyzing the difference between those
06 two types of goods and the influence the presence or absence of
07 a complement or a competitive good would have on the strategy
08 that you would take in enhancing your own sales of the primary
09 goods you're analyzing.
10 So, it's an integral part of any training we would have
11 for both economists but also now in terms of business training,
12 managers of business.
13 Q. What data are reasonably relied upon by economists when
14 they're trying to decide if something is a complementary good
15 or a substitute good?
16 A. Well, economists are very good at taking the broader
17 question and then breaking it down into subsets because the
18 world in general is so complex that we find in order to do an
19 analysis on one element, you have to hold other things, if you
20 will, fairly constant.
21 So, when you talk about complementary or substitute goods,
22 what essentially you have to do in your analysis is first you
23 do a broad spectrum of how big is the potential market for
24 anyone of this particular type, for instance: books. Then you
25 break that down into, perhaps, segments: religious books. Then
00618 { 9:19:27am}
01 you look at what might be out there in the way of available
02 income in the discretionary sense to be expended for books.
03 And then you further break it down to look at what is in the
04 market that might be either a compliment or a substitute.
05 Now, our analysis permits us, if you have data that has
06 been collected over time, sales of two different types of
07 books, let's say, that one can run certain statistical analyses
08 on that and make a fairly finite determination, the extent to
09 which one book enhances or decreases the sale of the other
10 book. It's called cross elasticity of demand, to put a very
11 technical term on something that is fairly simple when you
12 think about it.
13 But, essentially, you run just a fair formulation to say,
14 "If I change product B, what impact does that have on product
15 A?" And if you have historical data, you can generally,
16 through statistical measures, reduce and isolate that impact
17 specifically and directly to the competing or the substitute
18 good.
19 Q. Are there articles, economic articles or books, that
20 validate the use of that data in determining if something is a
21 substitute or a compliment?
22 A. It's an integral part of the literature on economic
23 theory. It's an integral part of the literature, if you will,
24 of all of the business economics courses that are taught in
25 both the undergraduate and the graduate levels.
00619 { 9:20:57am}
01 Q. Did you rely on this type of data in your investigation in
02 this case?
03 A. I did a statistical check on the nature and pretty much
04 how big is the book market, so to speak, and tried to isolate
05 of that approximately if the book sold, what percentage were
06 categorized, at least by the statisticians published in the
07 Statistical Abstract of the United States. Roughly 7 to 7.4
08 percent of all books sold fall into that general category,
09 religious-based kinds of materials.
10 MR. KERTSCHER: Your Honor, at this time we would
11 tender Dr. Rushing as an expert witness in the field of
12 economics.
13 THE COURT: Any objection, counsel?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: I'll stipulate to his qualifications as
15 an expert in economics. I will not stipulate to his
16 qualifications as an expert in the publishing field.
17 THE COURT: All right. Let me explain to the jury.
18 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you have noted, most
19 of the witnesses are limited to what they have seen or observed
20 or what is within their personal knowledge. They're not
21 allowed to express opinions with regard to matters. But the
22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow and the rules of
23 evidence allow certain witnesses that the Court finds qualified
24 based upon science or training or education to be qualified as,
25 quote, experts in the field, to not only express things they
00620 { 9:22:25am}
01 can see and observe but their opinions with regard thereto as
02 contrasted to an ordinary fact witness.
03 Now, he's allowed to express those opinions and you're not
04 bound to accept those opinions, although you may if it will
05 assist you in arriving at your verdict in this case. You can
06 give his testimony such weight and credibility as you believe
07 it should be received. You're not bound to accept it. Indeed,
08 it's what your determination is at the end of the trial, what
09 your verdict should be. Instead of exactly what he says, you
10 may accept it in part or reject it in whole, but he is allowed
11 and is determined by the Court to be qualified to express his
12 opinion under the circumstances that I've outlined.
13 Go ahead, counsel.
14 MR. KERTSCHER: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 Q. (BY MR. KERTSCHER) Dr. Rushing, just two more quick
16 housekeeping matters.
17 Are you being compensated for your professional services
18 in this case?
19 A. Yes, I am.
20 Q. And how much -- what is your hourly rate?
21 A. $200 an hour.
22 Q. Okay. Have you, in the past, testified on behalf of both
23 plaintiffs and defendants?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether The Urantia
00621 { 9:23:34am}
01 Book and Jesus - A New Revelation are competitive or
02 complementary goods?
03 A. I do have an opinion.
04 Q. What is that opinion?
05 A. My opinion is that they are competitive.
06 Q. Tell the jury why.
07 A. Well, fundamentally, in looking at the two volumes, Jesus
08 - A New Revelation is, in fact, book IV of The Urantia Book
09 verbatim. In fact, the table of contents are each the same.
10 So, in a sense, they are the same if you compare book IV in The
11 Urantia Book and the Jesus - A New Revelation. So, in that
12 sense, if you look at identical products in the sense of book
13 IV versus Jesus - A New Revelation, they would be, in my mind,
14 conspicuously competitive.
15 The differences lie therein in the fact that there are
16 three other books in The Urantia Book which brings up some
17 other issues with respect to competitiveness mainly regarding
18 to sales price and other issues.
19 Q. Well, tell the jury in this analysis of whether it's
20 competitive or whether it's a substitute, tell the jury about
21 the value-added component and whether or not that's important.
22 A. Remember when we were talking about cigarettes and salad,
23 we said that you would use them jointly and they would add
24 value, one to the other, and you can see how your salad is
25 enhanced by your salad dressing.
00622 { 9:25:09am}
01 A value-added would imply that things that are compliments
02 and used simultaneously someway enhance -- one product enhances
03 the other product. If I were to give you an example, more
04 along the lines of this particular case, if you had William
05 Faulkner as an author and you had The Combined Works of William
06 Faulkner, and then after some time you had a publication that
07 came out that said "The Selected Works of William Faulkner,"
08 not all the works but The Selected Works of William Faulkner in
09 which someone had chosen just parts of William Faulkner to
10 reproduce in another volume, I would see those as very much
11 directly competitive. A consumer with their dollars would go
12 into the market and would see both volumes sitting there and
13 would make a determination: "Do I want all the volume of
14 Faulkner or do I want only selected works?" They would thumb
15 through the volume of selected works to see if those were the
16 ones that they would most like to read and then proceed to make
17 their choice between those two options. Clearly, one is
18 competitive to the other. If you had the full volume of
19 Faulkner, why would you need the selected writings of Faulkner
20 because they would be included?
21 Let's assume, though, there's a third book that's out and
22 it's published -- and I'll give credit to my profession -- by
23 some academic in English literature who chose Faulkner and he
24 writes a very extended treatise on the characters developed in
25 Faulkner in which he goes through, in a very analytical sort of
00623 { 9:26:47am}
01 way, and talks about how Faulkner has developed these
02 characters in various ones of his books and, therefore, how the
03 reader can more fully understand the Faulkner by looking at the
04 interpretations of the character developed. I would see the
05 second volume as a compliment, in which if you bought the full
06 volume or whether you bought the short version, you would buy
07 the third book because it would compliment the first two so
08 that you, as a reader with that volume, would have a full
09 understanding and a greater appreciation of Faulkner, whether
10 it was all the works of Faulkner or selected works of Faulkner.
11 So there's value added from the character developments in
12 Faulkner to be either used with either one of the other
13 options. So you might indeed buy the complementary book, the
14 character development of Faulkner, to go along with either of
15 the other two. So you would have a case of a substitute and a
16 complementary book.
17 Q. Do competitive goods help or hurt each other's sales?
18 A. Well, they are, in fact, competitive. The notion of a
19 competitive, that's where we use the word sometimes
20 "substitute." A competitive is a choice -- is a choice,
21 either/or, which is to say, obviously, that if someone is rich
22 enough, they don't have to make those choices; they could buy
23 both. Typically, typically people are constrained by income;
24 therefore, they will make choices among the constrained options
25 that they go to, which is to say they narrowed it down, they
00624 { 9:28:24am}
01 know they want to buy Faulkner, and now which version of
02 Faulkner do they want to buy, and then they would make a
03 choice. But it would be unlikely that they would buy both
04 versions of Faulkner.
05 Q. So, Dr. Rushing, then is it likely that Jesus - A New
06 Revelation would help or hurt The Urantia Book sales?
07 A. In my estimation, it would hurt, and that is based on a
08 number of factors. Let me go into those.
09 The first is the fact that the Jesus - A New Revelation
10 is, in fact, a verbatim portion of the larger volume, The
11 Urantia Book.
12 Secondly, at least from the information provided as I
13 talked about, the quote from Dickerson Press, shows that the
14 book could have been published for about $3.80 a copy,
15 paperback. And that, according to their mailer, the volume
16 could be purchased for about $8.95. So, clearly, if you have a
17 book that is 1183 pages, it's going to sell for less than a
18 book that is 2086 -- excuse me -- 2176 pages, as The Urantia
19 Book is.
20 So you have, one, you have identical in one sense but not
21 totally because there is more in The Urantia Book than is in
22 the Jesus - A New Revelation, but you do have a very
23 significant price difference since the paper back of The
24 Urantia Book is going to most likely sell, according to their
25 flyer, somewhere around anywhere from 19.95 to 24.95,
00625 { 9:30:09am}
01 paperback, so it's almost twice as much, if you will, or over
02 twice as much in one case. So the cost associated with it is
03 different.
04 Now, what we know in economics and what demand theory
05 tells us, if price is lower, the quantity demanded is higher,
06 which is certainly a function of the fact that it brings in the
07 income constraint that we call it. Therefore, it's likely that
08 the cheaper version of very similar books is going to sell more
09 than the more expensive version.
10 The third element, which is, in part, a function of
11 marketing or appeal, if you will, to the consumer, we are all
12 subject to the marketing factors. How things are put together,
13 packaged, so to speak, is very relevant and important, how
14 attractive they are and so forth.
15 The titling and the package, the presentation of Jesus - A
16 New Revelation, is very effective. The title, I think, is very
17 descriptive, would have an appeal, I think, to a broad base of
18 the reading public, particularly those with interest in
19 Christian materials.
20 So, in all three cases, I think it has a very competitive
21 position vis-a-vis The Urantia Book, which is larger, more
22 expensive, and whose title, though descriptive in some sense to
23 its origin, is nevertheless not as fully descriptive or perhaps
24 as appealing as Jesus - A New Revelation.
25 So, in my estimation, the given choices of that nature,
00626 { 9:31:50am}
01 across the broad public are not for everybody, that a lot of
02 people would make choices early on to purchase the cheaper
03 version with its title and with its content over the larger
04 more costly version.
05 Q. Now, are you aware of any historical cases in which The
06 Urantia Book has competed against a volume that's very similar
07 to Jesus - A New Revelation?
08 A. The only information, and this comes out of the
09 declaration by Gene Royer about an instance in France in 1961,
10 The Urantia Foundation had, in fact, been pretty steadfast that
11 they wanted the book published in -- all four of the books
12 published in a single volume and did not want it broken down
13 for fear that it would be segmented and choices would be made
14 and they really hoped to have the book purchased in its entire
15 volume. But in 1961, in France, unbeknownst to The Urantia
16 Foundation, they did, in fact, break it down into three
17 volumes. The four books were broken into three separate books
18 plus the full collection.
19 What occurred in that one instance, which is the only data
20 that we have, is that the third book, which was the fourth
21 book, The Life and Teachings of Jesus in the Urantia volume,
22 outsold all the others, which is to say that people came in,
23 having the options of all the books in one volume or three
24 other books separated, they chose the last one, The Life and
25 Teachings of Jesus, to purchase, which would be the closest and
00627 { 9:33:37am}
01 most similar to Jesus - A New Revelation.
02 Q. So, is that a -- that real life experience in France in
03 1961, is that consistent or inconsistent with your conclusion
04 here today?
05 A. It's consistent with the hypothesis that it would, in
06 fact, be competitive and likely have sales that would diminish,
07 that is, Jesus - A New Revelation's sales would diminish the
08 sales for The Urantia Book.
09 Q. All right. Our last topic, Dr. Rushing.
10 Does Mr. McMullan's foundation, based on the information
11 you've been given, does it stand to make money on each book of
12 Jesus - A New Revelation that's sold?
13 A. Well, slightly rephrased, the cost of publishing the book
14 and the sales price is advertised. The sales price would be
15 sufficient to cover the cost plus to net out some revenues
16 which then could be described in a not-for-profit, they may be
17 called net revenues which would go into The Foundation.
18 Obviously, The Foundation then would have a choice how to
19 utilize those resources, which may be for further advertising
20 of the Jesus - A New Revelation or carrying out other
21 objectives of Michael Foundation.
22 But in any case, if, in fact, the hypothesis of this
23 analysis be true that they are competitive, then it might mean
24 that its net revenues are at the expense of The Urantia
25 Foundation's net revenues, which means they would lose some
00628 { 9:35:08am}
01 revenues to follow their choices for promoting their book
02 and/or meeting other of The Urantia Foundation's objectives.
03 Q. Well, just in layman's terms, how much, based on the
04 information, does it cost Michael Foundation to produce Jesus -
05 A New Revelation?
06 A. Well, roughly about $3.80, as I'd indicated earlier. They
07 advertised, though, that with some volume discounts it could be
08 slightly less than $8.95. So, you're looking at roughly $5.
09 Q. Of net gain per book?
10 A. Per book if it's sold at 8.95. If it was sold in the
11 volume discount after 10 of 7.95, it would be less.
12 Q. And even though it's a nonprofit entity, they'd still have
13 extra money to do things with it?
14 A. To meet whatever the objectives of The Foundation might
15 be.
16 Q. Would one of those objectives be advertising Jesus - A New
17 Revelation?
18 A. It could well be.
19 Q. And in a competitive situation such as this, does
20 increased sales and net gain for Mr. McMullan's foundation,
21 does that equal to decrease sales and net gain for The Urantia
22 Foundation?
23 A. Quite --
24 MR. ABOWITZ: Object to the form of the question,
25 Your Honor.
00629 { 9:36:25am}
01 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
02 Q. (BY MR. KERTSCHER) You may answer.
03 A. Okay. According to the analysis of competitive goods,
04 there would be direct trade-offs. That is to say, gains by the
05 one foundation, Michael Foundation, would be losses to The
06 Urantia Foundation.
07 MR. KERTSCHER: Doctor, I have no further questions.
08 Thank you.
09 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Cross?
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
13 Q. Good morning, Dr. Rushing. How are you?
14 A. Fine, thanks. How are you?
15 Q. Fine.
16 The $200 an hour that you get paid, do you get paid portal
17 to portal? In other words, when you left your house, whenever
18 you did, and cranked up your car to go to the Atlanta airport,
19 were you on the tab?
20 A. Sir, I'll have to tell you that in this case I got in a
21 taxicab in Cairo, Egypt and went to the airport and flew to
22 Oklahoma City from Cairo, Egypt.
23 The answer to the larger question is no, I'm not charging
24 portal to portal.
25 Q. Would you from Atlanta?
00630 { 9:37:37am}
01 A. The travel time is usually built in on a charge but at a
02 reduced rate.
03 Q. All right. Now, incidentally, you brought some papers
04 with you. What are they?
05 A. I brought a piece of paper with me.
06 Q. What is that?
07 A. It's just some notes I had on the materials that I
08 reviewed since I didn't trust my memory to provide all of that
09 information verbatim.
10 Q. May I see it?
11 A. You certainly may.
12 MR. ABOWITZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Thank you.
14 I see on there you've indicated to the ladies and
15 gentlemen of the jury and the Court that one of the things you
16 did to prepare for the opinions that you've rendered here today
17 is you've discussed the matter with a representative of
18 Cambridge Press, and I notice that on your sheet there that
19 individual is identified as Mr. Davis.
20 A. Robert Davis, I believe. He may go by Rob.
21 Q. Do you know he testified here yesterday?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. When you talked to him, did you know that he was a witness
24 in this case?
25 A. I did not. I did not know until you just said so, sir.
00631 { 9:39:12am}
01 Q. How did you get to speak to him? Was the introduction
02 provided by the lawyers?
03 A. No, it was a cold introduction. I phoned him. The
04 attorneys had given me a long list of public publishers and/or
05 distribution houses that they had a list of and I simply went
06 through and chose certain ones to call and try and talk to. My
07 recollection about Mr. Davis was that I had called and left
08 word, and the reason I have such a strong recollection is he
09 called me back fairly late on a Friday evening and I was
10 curious that he was still working so late in the day. But I
11 cold-called all of those individuals. There was no prior
12 introduction by anyone of me to them and I essentially started
13 cold in trying to describe what issues I was trying to deal
14 with and get their views on them as best as I could describe
15 them and have them provide some opinion.
16 Q. When you called Cambridge Press, did you have his name?
17 A. Yes, I did. I asked to speak directly to him, yes.
18 Q. So somebody provided that name to you before you called
19 Cambridge Press?
20 A. Yes. As I described to you, I had a whole list of -- and
21 I chose of that list I think maybe I called four or five and of
22 that I got three responses and I talked with them.
23 Q. What was your discussion with Mr. Davis?
24 A. It essentially was describing the issues that I was trying
25 to address, describing the two publications that are in
00632 { 9:40:52am}
01 question, asking about his perception of whether or not the
02 volume -- the two volumes, if you will, how competitive or
03 complementary they might be. Those kinds of -- many of the
04 issues that I've already talked about in the direct
05 examination.
06 Q. So your opinion today is at least in part based upon what
07 Mr. Davis's view is of the competitive nature of those two
08 books?
09 A. Yes, in part. There was other conversations about the
10 general nature of the industry. I think we had some
11 conversation about inventories and those kinds of things of
12 which I have not talked about. But he was the last person with
13 whom I spoke, and his opinions and views parallel those of the
14 other individuals with whom I had spoken.
15 Q. Let's discuss for a minute several of your Faulkner
16 analogy. If I am after a specific work of Faulkner and it is
17 not in a volume that says, "Selected Works of Faulkner," I'm
18 going to go buy the volume someplace else; is that correct?
19 A. If you want a specific book of Faulkner's, you would go
20 out and buy it, yes.
21 Q. And would you agree in that example, there is no
22 competition between The Selected Works of Faulkner and the book
23 that I ultimately buy?
24 A. No, I would not agree. I think if you have published The
25 Selected Works of Faulkner, which might include the book you're
00633 { 9:42:40am}
01 seeking, --
02 Q. My example is it does not.
03 A. Oh, does not?
04 Q. Does not.
05 A. Okay. Then it would not compete with the selected works.
06 It would compete with the full volume of Faulkner's works.
07 Q. My question is, sir, I have a specific book in mind, a
08 work of Faulkner that I want to read, I go to the book store, I
09 look at The Selected Works of Faulkner, and what I want to read
10 isn't in there.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. I then go and buy the volume I want to read.
13 My question is: The two works are not competitive; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Those two works are not competitive.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 Now, you indicated that in an instance there may be,
18 depending upon income, a person that would buy all the Faulkner
19 books if income was not a question -- I mean if dollars were
20 not a question.
21 A. That's right. The income constraint is always one that
22 you work with in demand theory.
23 Q. And did you do any economic study of the disposable income
24 of the readers of The Urantia Book?
25 A. I don't have a profile of the readers of The Urantia
00634 { 9:43:48am}
01 Book. I don't know specifically the economics or the -- let's
02 say the sex or the age of that population.
03 Q. The answer is no?
04 A. The answer is no; that's correct.
05 Q. Thank you.
06 Now, are you a reader of The Urantia Book?
07 A. No, I'm not.
08 Q. Did your investigation disclose that the readers of The
09 Urantia Book are in different categories?
10 A. I'm sorry. You'll have to -- did who disclose this to me?
11 Q. I didn't ask you if anybody disclosed it. I said during
12 your investigation --
13 A. Okay. Go ahead.
14 Q. -- did the investigation you conducted disclose to you
15 that there are various categories of Urantia Book readers?
16 A. I know there are quite an extensive volume of them but
17 when you say did I realize there were different categories of
18 readers, I guess my answer to that would be no.
19 Q. All right. Well, do you recognize the category of
20 devotional readers?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you recognize the category of academic readers?
23 A. Well, I understand academic readers but not in the context
24 of The Urantia Book. I would say in the conversations with
25 some of the publishers, there are scholars, religious scholars,
00635 { 9:45:16am}
01 who would presumably purchase The Urantia Book for the purposes
02 of their scholarship, but I don't have a feeling that's what
03 you're referring to specifically.
04 Q. Well, let's talk about that. Mr. Davis told us that he
05 didn't -- that he was a reader of The Urantia Book but didn't
06 want to be confused with a devotional reader of The Urantia
07 Book. Does that indicate to you that there is more than one
08 category of a reader?
09 A. I think every person is a different category of a reader.
10 I think we all get different things out of literature and I
11 think what we as individuals seek will help guide what we
12 purchase and also how we interpret what we read.
13 Q. In the course of your investigation into this case and the
14 development of your opinion, did you take into account the
15 spiritual nature of The Urantia Book?
16 A. I realize that it is spiritual in nature to certainly some
17 but, once again, you're differentiating one group of people who
18 do not see it as spiritual but as an academic reading.
19 Q. And did you take that into account in your assessment of
20 the market?
21 A. We have -- no, I did not --
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. -- and I'll tell you why I didn't.
24 Q. You just said "no" and if they want to find out why,
25 that's fine.
00636 { 9:46:36am}
01 MR. KERTSCHER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I think the
02 witness is entitled to express --
03 THE COURT: No, I think you can bring it out on
04 redirect if you want to, but he's answered. He's on cross-
05 examination and yes or no is sufficient. The explanation will
06 be brought out later.
07 MR. KERTSCHER: Thank you, Your Honor.
08 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, if I am a devotional reader and I
09 am truly interested in The Urantia Book, I would buy all four
10 sections of it in The Urantia Book as published; correct?
11 A. Well, you're asking me to interpret human behavior and the
12 economists don't interpret human behavior; we only see what
13 people do.
14 Q. You can't; is that correct?
15 A. We only see what people do.
16 Q. You're unable to do that?
17 A. That's correct. I can't interpret their motives. All I
18 can do is see their consequences.
19 Q. And you're unable to take account of that in your analysis
20 and opinion; is that correct?
21 A. Well, may we go back, sir, because I'm not sure I
22 understand the question?
23 Q. Well, let me rephrase.
24 You have indicated to us that you have not taken into
25 account in your opinion the fact that there are people who
00637 { 9:47:51am}
01 would purchase that book and would --
02 A. Which book, sir? "That book"?
03 Q. Purchase The Urantia Book for its spiritual content and
04 they would read it as a devotional reader. My question to you
05 is: You have not contemplated that in your analysis; is that
06 correct?
07 A. That is correct.
08 Q. Thank you.
09 Now, have you contemplated in your analysis that
10 devotional readers who buy Jesus - A New Revelation who are
11 interested in the spiritual content of The Urantia Book after
12 reading Jesus - A New Revelation and reading the index and
13 reading the reference to Urantia Book would buy a copy of The
14 Urantia Book?
15 A. Am I aware that that's a possibility? The answer would be
16 yes. I think that there's a whole range of possible options
17 the consumer would have and that's not one I would rule out.
18 Indeed, having sampled, they may in fact buy the full volume.
19 Q. Do you know what percentage of the market for The Urantia
20 Book is made up of devotional readers?
21 A. I do not.
22 Q. Have you, in the course -- you've testified, as I gather
23 from your resume, about 70 times over the last 70 years --
24 seven years?
25 A. I think that's testifying either in deposition or in
00638 { 9:49:30am}
01 court; yes, sir.
02 Q. But that's under oath?
03 A. That's correct, sir.
04 Q. Rendering an opinion on behalf of a party in a lawsuit?
05 A. Correct, sir.
06 Q. That's about 10 times a year. I was unable, by virtue of
07 the names of the cases, to determine if you've ever offered
08 opinions and testimony with respect to the economics of a book
09 market before or publishing. Is that true?
10 A. Yes, sir, that is true.
11 Q. You've never --
12 A. I was waiting for the question. Yes, sir, that's true.
13 Q. And the question is: You've never testified with respect
14 to the publishing market for book sales; is that correct?
15 A. That is correct, sir.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have.
17 THE COURT: Recross -- or redirect?
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. KERTSCHER:
20 Q. Let me follow up on that, Dr. Rushing.
21 You said you've published five books?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Did any of those books have anything to do with
24 intellectual property and copyright?
25 A. One of them was, in fact, was entitled Intellectual
00639 { 9:50:33am}
01 Property Rights and Its Role in Economic Development.
02 Q. And you wrote and published that book?
03 A. I was the editor of the volume and wrote one of the
04 chapters in there, yes.
05 Q. Now, are you aware of whether or not The Urantia Book is
06 available to the public as a whole?
07 A. I'm aware that it is available as a whole. In fact, they
08 have sold quite a number of volumes.
09 Q. And under general economic theory, is it likely or
10 unlikely that people will buy what they already have?
11 A. Well, what the evidence shows is that roughly now
12 The Urantia Book is selling somewhere between 25- and 30,000
13 copies a year.
14 Q. And to use counsel's analogy of the Faulkner work, the
15 smaller work that has excluded portions and you look for one of
16 those portions and it's not there so you go to the bigger book,
17 I think you had started to finish your answer and let me let
18 you finish now for the jury. Are those complementary or
19 competing goods?
20 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm going to
21 object to the recreation of my question. It's wrong. If you
22 want me to ask him --
23 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection to the
24 extent that I didn't understand your question.
25 MR. KERTSCHER: Fair enough. Fair enough. Let me
00640 { 9:51:50am}
01 try it again. I'm sorry.
02 Q. (BY MR. KERTSCHER) Do you recall the question I'm talking
03 about on cross-examination, Dr. Rushing?
04 A. Yes, I do.
05 Q. In that situation where you have a Faulkner work that's
06 made up of only part -- selected works of Faulkner, does that
07 work, if a reader goes there and they can't find the selected
08 work they are looking for so they then go to the bigger volume,
09 has that smaller work, the selected work, has that encouraged
10 anyone to buy the bigger volume?
11 A. No.
12 Q. So are they complementary goods?
13 A. No, they would still be substitute. In that analogy, the
14 single volume which was not found in the selected works was
15 clearly in the full volume of the other works. So, the single
16 book of Faulkner is still competitive, if you will, with the
17 collection of all the Faulkner works. It may not be
18 competitive in a direct sense since only that book, as the
19 analogy had it, was the only book they wanted to purchase, so
20 they had two options: the fuller version or the small version,
21 and they went to the small version because that most met their
22 needs, and that would show up in the data. But a sale for the
23 single volume is certainly not a sale for the larger collection
24 of works.
25 Q. And in that case that counsel used, the smaller volume has
00641 { 9:53:16am}
01 not encouraged anyone to buy the larger volume, has it?
02 A. No.
03 MR. KERTSCHER: I have no further questions. Thank
04 you.
05 THE COURT: Recross, if any?
06 MR. ABOWITZ: May I from here, Your Honor?
07 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
08 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
09 Q. But the smaller volume in this case, Jesus - A New
10 Revelation, does create a demand or could create a demand for
11 The Urantia Book by virtue of its reference to The Urantia
12 Book; is that correct?
13 A. Well, if you consider an advertisement for The Urantia
14 Book, I suppose that they would be aware of The Urantia Book
15 when they bought the Jesus - A New Revelation, yes, since it
16 clearly states in the forward -- or the preface, I believe,
17 that that's the source of the material in the Jesus - A New
18 Revelation.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you.
20 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. KERTSCHER:
22 Q. Doctor, does that fact change? Does it change the fact
23 that they're competitive goods?
24 A. No, it does not.
25 MR. KERTSCHER: Thank you.
00642 { 9:54:10am}
01 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
02 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
03 Q. Are they competitive goods if there's no copyright?
04 MR. KERTSCHER: Objection, Your Honor.
05 THE WITNESS: That's a legal question, I believe,
06 sir.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: I'll withdraw the question.
08 THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
09 You may step down. You'll be excused.
10 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
11 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I call Katharine Harries.
13 THE COURT: Come forward, please, and raise your
14 right hand and be sworn.
15 (WITNESS SWORN)
16 KATHARINE HARRIES,
17 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
18 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
19 THE COURT: Be seated here, if you will, on the
20 witness stand.
21 I'll ask you to speak into the microphone and state your
22 full name and spell your last name, please.
23 THE WITNESS: My name is Katharine Lee Jones-Harries,
24 H-A-R-R-I-E-S.
25
00643 { 9:56:14am}
01 DIRECT EXAMINATION
02 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
03 Q. Ms. Harries, would you introduce yourself to the jury and
04 tell them a little bit about yourself.
05 A. I think you probably all heard my name just then. I was
06 born and raised in Chicago, lived there all my life, went to
07 school there, got married and raised my daughter there. Once
08 she moved on to Georgia, we had no family left up north, so we
09 moved down there too. And we've been living down in Georgia
10 just outside Atlanta for about 15 years.
11 I went to school in Chicago: grammar school, high school,
12 University of Illinois. And I have been a member of what we
13 called The Forum in Chicago, as were my parents, my father,
14 then my mother, then my maternal grandmother who came to live
15 with us because she was without, and when I got old enough I
16 started going down with them to 533 Diversey to The Forum, and
17 when I got a little bit older I was able to go to meetings with
18 them.
19 Is that enough?
20 Q. Thank you. Sure.
21 Let's talk a little bit about that. Let's start, if you
22 don't mind, telling the Court, can you tell me your date of
23 birth?
24 A. I'm a Christmas baby, December 23rd, 1925.
25 Q. And I think you mentioned that -- I gather at that time
00644 { 9:57:56am}
01 your parents were living in Chicago?
02 A. Yes, they were.
03 Q. Tell the jury about how you first became marginally aware
04 that there was some group called The Forum.
05 A. As I was growing up, we were all members of the Episcopal
06 Church but that was in the morning on Sunday and I kept
07 noticing that on Sunday afternoon, after we had gone home from
08 church and had dinner, that my father would disappear, and for
09 a while I didn't know just where he was going. Then I found
10 out that he was going up to the north side of Chicago because
11 he was attending a group that was studying all sorts of
12 interesting things and that it really was very religious. It
13 was mostly about God and about his Son, whom we call Jesus, and
14 what's going to happen to us throughout our lives and after our
15 life on this planet, the magnificent future that we have, so
16 eventually my mother started going with him.
17 When I was, oh, about 11, 12, 13, somewhere in there, they
18 started taking me with them on Sunday afternoons but I was too
19 young to attend the meetings, so I would play or read on the
20 first floor offices of the Sadlers' and sometimes I was allowed
21 in nice weather to go up to the rooftop and sit in the sun and
22 visit up there.
23 When I became a little bit older, 13, I started attending
24 the meetings. And then when I was 16, I actually had a talk
25 with Dr. Sadler and told him I was very, very interested and
00645 {10:00:00am}
01 committed and would like to become a member of what we called
02 The Forum. So I signed the register book and I was a member
03 and started going to meetings every Sunday.
04 Q. Now, Ms. Harries, let's step back. You said, I believe,
05 that when you were 11, 12, 13, and I'm sure the exact time
06 isn't set in your mind, when would that have been around?
07 A. I'm sorry?
08 Q. You were about 11 to 13. That would have been
09 approximately in 1936, 1937, 1938?
10 A. Right, uh-huh.
11 Q. And you couldn't attend meetings, so what did you do?
12 A. When I was there in the afternoons but not at the
13 meetings?
14 Q. Uh-huh.
15 A. I would be with Ruth Kellogg who was the daughter of the
16 Kellogg family and they were related to the Sadlers. Ruth was
17 completely deaf, had been for many years because of a childhood
18 illness. I think it would be measles that make some people
19 deaf. She was a delightful young woman, could lip read, and we
20 talked constantly. She would take me into Dr. Sadler's offices
21 and I would look at the fetuses in the formaldehyde in the
22 bottles and she'd show me all the equipment, so on and so
23 forth. And, as I say, when it was -- there was no air
24 conditioning back then, so when it was a hot day we'd go up and
25 sit on the roof and continue to talk, and that's the way I
00646 {10:01:45am}
01 spent my time there until I was old enough to join.
02 Q. Now, before you joined, tell me about your father and
03 how -- tell me what you -- tell me what you observed in your
04 father's demeanor. How did your father act regarding what was
05 going on?
06 A. My father was always a very gentle, loving, kind man,
07 always very dedicated to God and to his own religious life and
08 our religious life. And I really am not quite sure just what
09 you're getting at with the rest of the sentence. He was a
10 delightful, wonderful, kind and good person.
11 Q. Would you say that he was excited about what was going on?
12 A. Tremendously. It truly took over his life and made him
13 completely dedicated to what he was learning and studying every
14 Sunday and dedicated to doing whatever he could do then and in
15 the future to be able to spread the information that's found in
16 The Urantia Book, spread it throughout the whole world.
17 Q. And in stepping back, before your mother joined, what was
18 her take on what your father was doing?
19 A. In the beginning she didn't know what was happening
20 because daddy would disappear every Sunday afternoon, and she
21 finally found out that he was going to a group that was
22 studying, and studying about God in particular. And she
23 decided she would like to go see what it was all about and she
24 went with him and she became so fascinated with it all and
25 liked it so very much that she asked if she might join, and she
00647 {10:03:49am}
01 was given permission to do so by Dr. Sadler, and so she did.
02 So we have a whole family history of it.
03 Q. So in 19- -- approximately 1938, --
04 A. About then, yes.
05 Q. -- you began to attend meetings --
06 A. Uh-huh.
07 Q. -- but you did not join at that time?
08 A. Right.
09 Q. Would you tell me a little bit about what you observed at
10 those meetings.
11 A. The room in which the meetings was held was on the second
12 floor of the building, right across the front of the building.
13 Windows all along one side and chairs to sit in with an aisle
14 down the middle. At the front of the room was a lectern and
15 Dr. Sadler or his son, Bill Sadler, would talk to the people
16 who were assembled there about all sorts of things that they
17 had been studying and learning and, as time went on, things
18 that they were learning through the papers that were coming
19 through to them, the information that you would find in the
20 reading of The Urantia Book.
21 Q. And would only Dr. Sadler and Bill Sadler read the papers?
22 A. No. Sometimes Christie, who was secretary there, would
23 read the papers. In later years, after we had all been
24 studying for a long time, people would select a topic from The
25 Urantia Book and act as school teachers themselves. They would
00648 {10:05:32am}
01 work it up from the information found in the papers and then
02 they would give -- they would read the paper and they would
03 answer the questions that were asked them.
04 Q. Now, what type of people were in The Forum?
05 A. People from all walks of life. We had doctors and
06 lawyers, executives, businessmen, house wives. For a long,
07 long time I was the only one there that you might put in the
08 classification of children. We had every walk of life, men and
09 women, and young people.
10 Q. Now, when did you first meet Dr. Sadler?
11 A. Well, I met him when I first started going to 533 Diversey
12 when I still wasn't able to go up to the meetings because it
13 would break at the half and everyone would go out for a short
14 time to get an ice-cream or a Coke, and then the second half of
15 the meeting would start and so I got to talk with him and I
16 knew him, I knew his wife and his son and his grandchildren.
17 Q. What was your first impression of Dr. Sadler?
18 A. Brilliance. He was -- He had a brain that was
19 astounding. He was a truly brilliant person and a kind, loving
20 man, and very capable in everything that he did.
21 Q. Did you also get to know his wife?
22 A. Yes, I did, but for a very short time because she did die,
23 and I don't know what year it was but it was fairly early.
24 Q. What about -- there's been some talk of a group called the
25 Contact Commissioners.
00649 {10:07:41am}
01 A. Yes.
02 Q. Was Dr. Sadler and his wife Contact Commissioners?
03 A. Yes, Dr. Sadler; Dr. Lena, his wife; his son, William
04 Sadler, Jr., whom we all called Bill; and I'm not sure whether
05 Christie, the secretary, was a member of The Contact Commission
06 or not. And I believe Mr. Kellogg was.
07 Q. And did you get to know Christie at all?
08 A. Yes, for many, many years. And Christie and my mother
09 were very close friends. I worked with Christie, not
10 professionally at all, but in later years, as I was holding
11 different offices, I guess I'd call them, in The Forum and
12 first Urantia Society, I worked a great deal with Christie.
13 Q. And would you tell the jury a little bit about Christie,
14 what type of person she was.
15 A. Christie's name was Emma L. Christensen. I believe she
16 was from Minnesota, and at one time I also met her sister. She
17 was tall, a very nice-looking woman, very, very smart, and she
18 was a great help to Dr. Sadler in everything that he was doing
19 because she was also a stenographer and a typist. But she was
20 always there and always at the meetings and even though I was a
21 child, she never treated me as such. She was always very
22 solicitous, very, very good.
23 Q. Now, at some point -- you began attending meetings in 1938
24 -- and at some point you decided that you wanted to expand your
25 introduction into The Forum. How did you go about doing that?
00650 {10:09:45am}
01 A. After attending Forum meetings on Sunday, if a person
02 decided that he wanted to become a signed-up member and really
03 devote himself to studying what was in the Urantia Papers, all
04 one had to do was to go talk to Dr. Sadler, tell him exactly
05 those things, ask if it would be perfectly all right to join
06 and attend every week, and as long as he felt that the person
07 was quite sincere in that desire, that person was immediately
08 allowed to sign the register book and become a member.
09 Q. Now, were there any obligations placed upon you when you
10 signed up to be a member of The Forum?
11 A. The only obligation was that none of the things that were
12 discussed at 533 in the meetings were ever to be discussed
13 outside of the building with people who knew nothing about what
14 was going on, knew nothing about the Urantia Papers. So, we
15 could discuss things with one another, with our -- I had my
16 mother and father there and my grandmother, so I could discuss
17 with them. But other relatives who were not members of The
18 Forum couldn't -- we couldn't talk with them about the
19 teachings that were in the Urantia Papers at the time.
20 Q. Was the purpose of the oath ever communicated to you, why
21 you were to remain secret?
22 A. I don't --
23 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I believe that calls for a
24 hearsay answer.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
00651 {10:11:28am}
01 A. Would you state the question again, please?
02 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Sure.
03 Did you have an understanding of why The Contact
04 Commission wanted new Forum members to sign an oath not to
05 discuss?
06 A. This would really be my own understanding of the reason,
07 and I think it was because, as all of this information was so
08 new at the time and was incomplete because it came over a
09 period of many months and years, that it was just felt that it
10 would be unwise in many respects and many things that might
11 cause problems with other people and that they would not
12 understand what we were doing and think that it was something
13 that we shouldn't be doing, because if you don't know what's
14 going on, you can think anything you want. So it was better
15 that we just didn't talk about it, excepting within our group.
16 Q. What else did The Forum do together? These meetings --
17 let me understand this -- they always occurred on a particular
18 day; is that correct?
19 A. We met Sunday afternoon from about 1:00 until 3:30,
20 4 o'clock, somewhere around in there. We had parties as a
21 Forum group. We had a big summer party out at the people that
22 we call Ma and Pa Hales. They were the, what I would call,
23 grandparents in age relationship to me. But we would go out to
24 their large home in Oak Park, Illinois, which was a northern
25 suburb of the city, and all take our big baskets of food with
00652 {10:13:31am}
01 us and they would provide the hamburgers and hot dogs and we
02 would have a tremendous party all day long, and then later in
03 the day we'd go back into the house and we'd all talk.
04 Q. Now, at the time you joined in 1941, do you recall the day
05 you joined The Forum?
06 A. No.
07 Q. Was it around -- How old were you; do you recall that?
08 A. I was able to start attending meetings at 13 but not able
09 to talk with Dr. -- to join -- to sign the paper and join as an
10 official member until I was 16. That was the youngest anyone
11 was allowed to join then. After -- A few years later, they
12 upped the age to 18.
13 Q. And when was your 16th birthday, if you recall?
14 A. December 23rd.
15 Q. 16 years from the --
16 A. 16 plus 25.
17 Q. Okay. Well, we've talked a little bit about the
18 trustees -- I mean -- excuse me -- the Contact Commissioners:
19 Dr. Sadler, Ms. Christensen, Dr. Sadler's wife and the Kelloggs
20 and Bill Sadler.
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. Let's start with Dr. Sadler.
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. You've described him somewhat. Do you have an opinion as
25 to whether he was a reputable and honest man?
00653 {10:15:00am}
01 A. Most definitely. He was, to use the terms that we use
02 today, he was squeaky clean. He was very reputable, very kind,
03 very good, and very honest.
04 Q. And would you have the same opinion of his wife?
05 A. Yes, although she died early in life, so I didn't know her
06 for those long years. But she was the same way.
07 Q. And how close were you with the -- I mean, I know you were
08 much younger but how close were you with the Kelloggs?
09 A. Very. Especially with their daughter who was deaf from a
10 childhood illness and was very dear, very thoughtful and kind
11 to me as a young child, so I spent a lot of time with her in
12 the early years.
13 Q. And did you get to know her parents, the Kelloggs?
14 A. Yes, I knew Mr. and Mrs. Kellogg for many years because
15 they were there at 533 all the time.
16 Q. Do you have an opinion --
17 A. Very nice couple.
18 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether they were honest?
19 A. Very honest. Good people.
20 Q. What about Christie?
21 A. Christie was what I would call a darling. She was a very
22 bright woman and had done a number of things in her educational
23 life. She also acted as a secretary, took stenography and
24 typed. Back in those days, it was shorthand; it wasn't with a
25 machine. She had a good education and was a fine person.
00654 {10:16:46am}
01 Q. And before we move on, were these meetings that took place
02 on Sunday?
03 A. Where?
04 Q. No. These meetings that took place --
05 A. Yes, they took place on Sunday.
06 Q. Did they always take place at the same location?
07 A. Yes, they did.
08 Q. Where was that?
09 A. That was on the second floor in the front living room at
10 533 Diversey, Chicago.
11 Q. And who resided at that address?
12 A. Dr. And Mrs. Sadler resided there. And in later years,
13 Christie also resided there. Well, Bill Sadler, the son of
14 Dr. Sadler, he lived there too.
15 Q. Now, when you joined The Forum in 1941, you said you went
16 and you had to speak with Dr. Sadler --
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. -- to see if you were serious. Do you recall that
19 conversation?
20 A. Not specific words and sentences, no. Just in general
21 ideas like that.
22 Q. Was he comfortable that you were sincere?
23 A. Was he what?
24 Q. Was he comfortable with your sincerity?
25 A. Oh, yes. And he had known me for many, many years, which
00655 {10:17:59am}
01 always helps. But, yes, he was comfortable with me.
02 Q. So he permitted you to join?
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. And -- well, let's stop a minute. Are you familiar with a
05 document called The History of the Urantia Movement?
06 A. I have read it.
07 Q. Do you, in fact, have a copy?
08 A. Yes.
09 Q. And tell me about the condition of that copy.
10 A. The condition of it? You mean --
11 Q. Well, was it printed yesterday?
12 A. Oh, no, it's old and wrinkled and turning slightly yellow
13 from age, if that's what you're talking about, with condition.
14 Q. That's what I'm talking about.
15 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. Do you recall -- because I've seen it as well -- do you
17 recall the paper clip?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Unless it was the one of my records which I had put in my
21 boxes that left the imprint of a paper clip on the paper.
22 Q. Do you recall the date on that document?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Is it -- Would you say it's an old document?
25 A. Old is a relative term, but, yes, I'd say it has been
00656 {10:19:15am}
01 around for a very good portion of my lifetime. And if you want
02 my age, I'll give it.
03 Q. That's all right. That's all right. We'll do the math.
04 In that document, you're familiar with the document that
05 you have?
06 A. Uh-huh.
07 Q. And --
08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Could you pull up Plaintiff's 8,
09 Michael Foundation 8?
10 MR. ABOWITZ: We found a better copy of that,
11 actually.
12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: She's not going to read from it,
13 so I'm just going to show it to her.
14 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
15 MR. ABOWITZ: I found a more legible copy of it last
16 night, Judge. It might be easier for the witness to see.
17 THE COURT: Do you wish to substitute --
18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: She's not going to read it, Your
19 Honor. She's just going to take a look at it.
20 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, counsel.
21 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Could you turn around, Ms. Harries,
22 to your -- to my right?
23 A. Do you want me to walk out?
24 Q. No, no, ma'am. You can just turn behind you.
25 THE COURT: There's another copy.
00657 {10:20:13am}
01 A. Oh, okay.
02 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Does that look similar to portions
03 of --
04 A. Yes.
05 Q. -- your document?
06 A. Yes, it does. Yes.
07 Q. Do you recognize that?
08 A. I recognize it.
09 Q. Do you recall when you joined The Forum what the
10 membership was, roughly?
11 A. Perhaps somewhere around 70 people, and that's active
12 members. There were members that had dropped away or died.
13 But not necessarily 70 at meetings every Sunday.
14 Q. And do you recall, back when you started attending in 1938
15 how many papers had The Forum discussed? When I say "papers,"
16 I refer to the papers that are now in The Urantia Book. And I
17 don't need an exact number.
18 A. They certainly had discussed any and all that they had
19 received by that time and I don't know what number had been
20 received then. None of the papers were complete. Everything
21 was added to over the years as people asked questions and then
22 those questions were answered and added into the Urantia Papers
23 to make the whole that we have now in The Urantia Book. So it
24 has grown over the years.
25 Q. And you recall those questions when you started attending
00658 {10:21:54am}
01 meetings in 1938?
02 A. Well, I wouldn't be able to tell you today any specific
03 question that was asked. I know that my father spent hours and
04 weeks and years typing up questions to submit to Dr. Sadler so
05 that the questions could then be submitted and answers
06 received.
07 Q. Did you ever submit questions?
08 A. No.
09 Q. Why? Is there a reason?
10 A. I was too young. It never occurred to me at that time.
11 Q. When you joined The Forum as opposed to attending meetings
12 in 1941, were there papers still being received and questions
13 still being asked?
14 A. Oh, yes, yes, all the time.
15 Q. Tell me -- we've talked about the individual members of
16 The Contact Commission. Tell me about The Contact Commission
17 itself. What was their -- what did they do at these meetings?
18 A. You mean as The Contact Commission?
19 Q. Yes, ma'am.
20 A. Whenever Dr. Sadler contacted them to let them know that
21 there was going to be a contact through this man, they all got
22 together and they went over to the home of the man and they got
23 more information. They had submitted the questions, answers
24 had come to the questions that were submitted, and then these
25 answers with the questions that were given were included in the
00659 {10:23:38am}
01 Urantia Papers that were already in existence. So these papers
02 constantly grew in length and in content over the years that
03 they were being prepared.
04 Q. Now, did anybody force you to join The Forum?
05 A. No.
06 Q. What was your father's reaction when you told him you
07 wanted to join The Forum?
08 A. I think that both my mother and my father just assumed
09 that I would be interested because they were so interested.
10 And so when I -- it wasn't a big deal of saying, "I want to be
11 a member," and, "Oh, really?" It was just a natural part of
12 life.
13 Q. Did you pay anything to join The Forum?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Were you compensated in any way --
16 A. No.
17 Q. -- for taking part in these meetings?
18 A. Huh-uh. No one was.
19 Q. Do you know if the Contact Commissioners were compensated
20 in any way?
21 A. I know that they were not.
22 Q. Now, you mentioned some questions and you've mentioned you
23 can't recall specific questions.
24 A. You mean that were submitted?
25 Q. Yes.
00660 {10:25:00am}
01 A. No, I don't recall any specific questions. I merely know
02 that there were a lot of them.
03 Q. Do you recall, were the questions submitted in writing to
04 The Contact Commission?
05 A. Yes, at least my father's were. I know that he always
06 typed them up and submitted them, so I assume that the rest
07 were.
08 Q. Tell me, when were the questions submitted?
09 A. As soon as the person thought of them and asked Dr. Sadler
10 to include those questions.
11 Q. Well, what time did the Sunday meeting normally start?
12 A. They started in different form many many long years even
13 before my father and mother were members because originally it
14 was merely a group of professional people who got together on
15 Sunday afternoon at Dr. Sadler and Dr. Lena's home for a cup of
16 tea and perhaps some sandwiches and cake and some very
17 interesting discussions about all sorts of topics. It evolved
18 slowly from that into things that became far more spiritual and
19 more about God and not merely scientific things.
20 Q. Well, now, I'm speaking specifically about on Sundays. Do
21 you recall if they started in the morning or afternoon, the
22 meetings?
23 A. The meetings started at 1 o'clock and they lasted for an
24 hour and we would have about 15 minutes intermission and go
25 back for the second hour and then that was the close of the
00661 {10:26:42am}
01 meeting.
02 Q. Well, what happened in the first hour, generally?
03 A. What happened when?
04 Q. What happened during the first hour?
05 A. Oh, the paper that was then in the -- in any amount that
06 was in the possession of Dr. Sadler was read out loud the first
07 half, everyone listened, thought what they were going to ask
08 questions about. And then the second half, when we came back
09 into the room, we could ask questions and get answers and have
10 discussion.
11 Q. Now, when you say ask questions and get answers, these
12 were --
13 A. I mean ask Dr. Sadler or Christie or whoever happened to
14 be read- -- or Bill Sadler, whoever happened to be reading the
15 paper and leading the meeting that particular afternoon.
16 Q. You'd ask them, for instance, maybe what they thought?
17 A. Uh-huh, or, "What does that mean?" or, "Does this mean
18 such and such?" or, "Is this connected to something else?"
19 That type of question.
20 Q. And then you said that the questions could be submitted to
21 The Contact Commission to go to the subject. Were they
22 submitted -- I mean, were they submitted at any time?
23 A. This was a separate type of submitting questions. The
24 secondary questions, which we would ask on Sunday afternoon,
25 were all verbal and answered right then or discussed right then
00662 {10:28:09am}
01 and there.
02 Q. Do you recall when your father used to submit questions?
03 Did he do it at the end of the second part of the meeting?
04 A. My father spent hours and days and weeks and months and
05 years writing questions and typing them and submitting them.
06 Q. So at all times?
07 A. All along.
08 Q. Do you recall in 1941 when you joined, was there any
09 discussion in The Forum between the Contact Commissioners about
10 publishing these papers at some point?
11 A. I always felt that it was always considered that
12 eventually this would be published. It may not have -- when I
13 say "always," it may not have been in the very, very, very
14 beginning but very soon it turned to that and it was decided
15 that this would all be typed up and submitted to printers to
16 have plates made and have it put in book form.
17 Q. Now, at some point after you joined in 1941 -- do you
18 recall when the book was actually published?
19 A. 1955, and I believe it was October.
20 Q. So in 1941 until 1955, do you recall any request for
21 funds?
22 A. Really, you could call it a request for funds but what I
23 always thought of it as was helping get the money together for
24 the large costs that would be incurred to make plates. The
25 printing was quite different back then. They made heavy metal
00663 {10:29:58am}
01 plates to do the printing from that and you had to have all of
02 the plates set, typeset, and then made into the solid plates,
03 and that cost a lot of money. So, people were asked to donate
04 money or prepay for as many books as they would like to
05 purchase at the time that they were finally printed and that
06 money was all taken and put together and used for the costs
07 incurred.
08 Q. Do you recall if your mother or father contributed any
09 money?
10 A. They did, and I did.
11 Q. Do you recall how much you did?
12 A. On my little allowance? 5 or $10, I think it was. That
13 was a lot of money to me.
14 Q. Was there anyone in The Forum and Contact Commission, for
15 that matter, who didn't want to publish the papers?
16 A. We were all so anxious to have it published so that it
17 could be out into the rest of the world and we could talk about
18 it with friends and relatives and so that we could have it to
19 read and study any time we wanted.
20 Q. Well, what do you mean by that? Couldn't you read and
21 study the papers any time you wanted?
22 A. If we went to 533, yes, we could sit there and read the
23 papers but we could not take them out and read them at home or
24 anywhere else.
25 Q. Do you draw a correlation between that requirement to read
00664 {10:31:30am}
01 the papers at 533 Diversey and the oath you took, was there a
02 similar purpose?
03 A. Yes, because until such time as the publication of the
04 book, it was all discussed and studied within the confines of
05 533. It was not in the public domain at that point.
06 Q. And I think you mentioned earlier, could it have been that
07 one of the reasons was the papers weren't completed as yet?
08 A. Oh, definitely.
09 Q. Now, when we talk about publishing The Urantia Book, who
10 was the decision made by to publish these papers?
11 A. As to when to go ahead and do it or do you mean in
12 general?
13 Q. In general.
14 A. I think everyone wanted to have it published but it would
15 have been The Contact Commission mostly: Dr. Sadler, Dr. Lena,
16 Christie, and the Kelloggs, Bill Sadler.
17 Q. At some point was it decided that an organization should
18 be formalized or something should be done to help or to manage
19 this publication?
20 A. No one wanted all of us to stop at the time of
21 publication. We enjoyed our study on Sunday afternoon so much
22 that we all wanted to be able to continue going down to 533 on
23 Sunday afternoons in order to read and discuss the papers and
24 it became family. We also had our wonderful social
25 relationships too.
00665 {10:33:20am}
01 Q. Do you recall -- You said the book was published in
02 October, I think, of 1955?
03 A. Uh-huh.
04 Q. Do you recall the day the books came?
05 A. Vividly. Everyone was so excited. They were nearly
06 beside themselves. We had been told that the books were there
07 and we could come pick them up, and people had prepaid and
08 ordered them by the case load, and that Sunday they arrived
09 with their cars and their vans and their trucks and they carted
10 out these big boxes of books. We were just all so excited we
11 could hardly contain ourselves.
12 Q. Is there anything you'd like to add to what you've said
13 today, tell the jury about?
14 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I object to that.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Thank you very much, Ms. Harries.
17 THE COURT: Cross-examination?
18 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
19 MR. HILL: Actually, Your Honor, would this be a good
20 time to break?
21 THE COURT: Well the cross-examination be extensive
22 or should we take a break?
23 MR. ABOWITZ: By the time that big hand gets to the
24 6, we'll be on our recess.
25 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, counselor.
00666 {10:34:38am}
01 CROSS-EXAMINATION
02 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
03 Q. Good morning. How are you?
04 A. Good morning. Fine. Thank you.
05 Q. I would like to just go over one portion of the document
06 that was shown to you.
07 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 20 -- or the 20th
08 page of the exhibit that you just put up? I'm sorry.
09 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, Your Honor. Is this water?
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: May I pour?
12 THE COURT: You surely may. Be careful with the lid.
13 MR. ABOWITZ: May I help you? May I help you with
14 that?
15 THE WITNESS: I think I may have it. I may have
16 trouble getting it back.
17 MR. ABOWITZ: May I help, Your Honor?
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 MR. ABOWITZ: You're welcome.
20 Let me do it this way. May I approach the witness, Your
21 Honor, and may I put it up on the viewer?
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) I'm going to show you the 20th page of
24 that exhibit which is called Receiving The Completed Papers.
25 MR. ABOWITZ: There we go. Would you scroll it down,
00667 {10:36:12am}
01 please, so the ladies and gentlemen of the jury can see this?
02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I, Your Honor?
03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Now, ma'am, if I may, let me show you
04 this. You can see that easier than looking at that.
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. Is that part of the document that you recognized earlier
07 this morning?
08 A. May I take a moment to read it?
09 Q. Sure. Please do.
10 A. All right.
11 Q. Do you recognize that as part of that old document that
12 you have at home --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- that's falling apart?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Your Honor?
17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Is that in good enough shape to read
18 from? We've all been having a tough time --
19 A. Uh-huh.
20 Q. -- reading that.
21 A. Would you like me to read that out loud?
22 Q. No, no. I just want you to read these last two sentences
23 for me.
24 A. "The first three parts were completed and certified to us
25 in A.D. 1934. The Jesus papers were not so delivered to us
00668 {10:37:51am}
01 until 1935."
02 Q. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you for coming.
03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I have one quick question.
04 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
05 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
06 Q. Obviously that says what you read. Do you have any doubt
07 in your mind that when you started attending Forum meetings in
08 1938 that questions were still being asked?
09 A. I can't remember specifically any question that was asked.
10 Q. No, I don't mean specific questions. I mean do you recall
11 generally that at the meetings Forum members submitted
12 questions?
13 A. Oh, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And that was in 1938?
15 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. And do you recall when you started attending meetings in
17 1938 that partial papers were still coming in?
18 A. Yes, they were.
19 Q. Okay. And Dr. Sadler would read sometimes, I think you
20 testified earlier, partial papers?
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. Okay. And is that also true in 1941 when you joined The
23 Forum?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No further questions.
00669 {10:39:01am}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: Briefly, Judge?
02 THE COURT: Pardon?
03 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, briefly?
04 THE COURT: Sure.
05 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
06 BY MR. ABOWITZ:
07 Q. The old document that the lawyer asked you about that you
08 have at home is the history of the Urantia movement?
09 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it's believed that that came from Dr. Sadler?
11 A. In what way do you mean came from Dr. Sadler? He handed
12 it to me, yes.
13 Q. All right. It came from him. And you understood that to
14 be his view of the history of the Urantia movement?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And that's a copy of what you have at home?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. And that's what he says about completion and certification
19 of the papers; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have, Judge?
23 THE COURT: You may step down.
24 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
25 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll
00670 {10:39:58am}
01 take a recess for 15 minutes. Be back in the jury box 15
02 minutes from right now. And I'll remind you again of my
03 previous admonition.
04 Everyone please stand.
05 Court's in recess.
06 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
07 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF
08 THE JURY:)
09 THE COURT: Be seated, please.
10 Call your next witness, Mr. Hill.
11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I call Mary Lou Hales.
12 THE COURT: Would you raise your right hand and be
13 sworn, please.
14 (WITNESS SWORN)
15 MARY LOU HALES,
16 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
17 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
18 THE COURT: If you can, make your way through the
19 obstacle course here to the witness chair.
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I pour some water?
21 THE COURT: Surely.
22 Would you state your full name and spell your last name
23 into the microphone, please.
24 THE WITNESS: Mary Lou Hales, H-A-L-E-S.
25
00671 {11:00:26am}
01 DIRECT EXAMINATION
02 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
03 Q. Ms. Hales, would you please tell the jury a little bit
04 about yourself.
05 A. Well, I'm 92-and-a-half years old, to begin with. And I
06 grew up in Illinois, outside of Chicago, and lived there most
07 all of my life. I was married and engaged in 1932 just before
08 I became acquainted with these papers. And my husband and I
09 have lived in Winnetka for some years and I'm still living in
10 my home. My husband --
11 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me, Your Honor. May I ask that
12 the microphone --
13 THE COURT: Yes. Pull that microphone a little
14 closer to you, please.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 A. My husband and I lived in Winnetka for some 60 years and
17 he has passed away and my daughter has passed away also.
18 And what else would you like to know?
19 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) That's a good start. You're 92.
20 Do you recall the year you were born, Ms. Hales?
21 A. Do I recall the year I was born?
22 Q. Yes, ma'am.
23 A. Well, I was born in 1908. I don't recall it particularly.
24 Q. You said you became engaged in 1932?
25 A. Uh-huh.
00672 {11:02:27am}
01 Q. To whom did you become engaged?
02 A. To William Hales, and we had grown up together
03 practically. We met in Latin class in high school and became
04 acquainted at that point and went together for -- from then on
05 really. Not entirely. We had other dates also but we went
06 together for a long time. And he went off to college, to
07 Williams College in Massachusetts at that point and I went to
08 Beloit College in Wisconsin, so we had our separations which
09 were interesting, but we've known each other for a long time.
10 Q. And in 1932, you became engaged to Mr. Hales?
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. Can you tell me generally about the engagement and what
13 occurred subsequently?
14 A. Yes. We were -- well, we loved to dance, my husband and
15 I, and we went on weekends, we would go down to either the
16 Drake Hotel or Edgewater Beach and go dancing. And in 1972 we
17 went off for one of our weekend dances and while we were at the
18 table Bill began to tell me about something that was very
19 important to him, apparently, and he was telling me about the
20 group that he belonged to and he was hoping I would be
21 interested in joining also.
22 So, I heard part of what he was saying but we were rather
23 close to the orchestra and I couldn't hear everything he was
24 saying, but it surely sounded like he was very interested and
25 he was very anxious to have me be interested in. So I said, of
00673 {11:04:34am}
01 course, "Yes, I'll be happy to go and visit this group if you'd
02 like me to." So that's what we did. The next week, I think it
03 was, he took me to this group that he had been going to for
04 some years, and his mother and father also had been going
05 there, to listen to some lectures, and so I went with him and
06 was introduced to Dr. Sadler and some friends of his that were
07 there. And that's how I learned about the Urantia Papers.
08 Q. Now, when you went to -- it's 533 Diversey; correct?
09 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. And when you first went there, is that when you met
11 Dr. Sadler?
12 A. I had met him previously, I think, because he and his wife
13 were friends of Bill's mother and father, so I met them at
14 Mr. and Mrs. Hale's home.
15 Q. And can you tell me a little bit about Dr. Sadler, what
16 type of person he was?
17 A. Oh, well, he was a very nice person. He had been a
18 surgeon and a doctor and then had become a psychiatrist and he
19 was rather very jovial, and looked like a little -- well, sort
20 of a little powder pigeon, but a very -- of course very
21 intelligent and a very interesting person. And Dr. Lena, his
22 wife, also was a very nice person and very friendly. And
23 because they had known the Hales for quite sometime, you felt
24 as though you had known them for sometime too. I felt as
25 though I had known them for quite sometime. But they were
00674 {11:06:25am}
01 really wonderful people and you could tell they were
02 intelligent and were really very service-minded, I would say,
03 and wanted to help their fellow man. I think everyone seemed
04 to like them, I would think. We all did.
05 Q. Do you have an opinion -- I mean, I take it you got to
06 know him very well while you were in The Forum?
07 A. Uh-huh.
08 Q. Do you have an opinion as to his -- whether he was an
09 honest man?
10 A. Oh, yes, of course. Uh-huh.
11 Q. How about his wife, Dr. Lena Sadler?
12 A. She was a lovely person and a very fine doctor, too. Very
13 fine.
14 Q. Did you -- Now, there's been some talk about a group
15 called The Contact Commission.
16 A. Yes. Bill, I think, told me about that.
17 Q. Once you joined The Forum, did you come to realize that
18 there was such a group?
19 A. Yes. Yes. We were told about them.
20 Q. Do you know whether Christie, Emma Christensen, was a
21 Contact Commissioner?
22 A. Yes, she was, uh-huh.
23 Q. And the Kelloggs, Wilfred Kellogg and his wife?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you get to know those three people well?
00675 {11:07:38am}
01 A. Yes, quite well, because we would go to meetings every
02 Sunday, I would go with Bill and we would go to lectures on
03 Sundays and usually they would all be there.
04 Q. And similar to what I asked you about Dr. Sadler, were
05 they likeable people?
06 A. Oh, yes. I was a little in awe of them, I must say,
07 because we were the youngest -- Bill and I were the youngest
08 members of the study group or lecture group, and so we were in
09 a little bit in awe of these older people who were very
10 intelligent and very interesting people.
11 Q. Now, was this all -- when you first went into The Forum
12 and had your interview with Dr. Sadler, was this approximately
13 in 1932?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Near your engagement?
16 A. Uh-huh, just after we were engaged. I had to read about
17 32 papers before I could become a member really, a member of
18 the lecture group, but I did drive over there and read the
19 papers and finally was taken into the group.
20 Q. You said you had to read 32 papers before you could join
21 the group. Why was that?
22 A. Well, the group had been -- they had read them ahead of me
23 because they were members earlier than I was so they had read
24 32 papers by the time I got into the group and I had to catch
25 up with them. So that's why I went over to read them.
00676 {11:09:15am}
01 Q. Do you recall anything generally about the interview with
02 Dr. Sadler?
03 A. Did I -- pardon me? Would you repeat?
04 Q. Yes. Let me restate it. I'm sorry.
05 Do you recall the interview with Dr. Sadler? Do you
06 recall that it occurred?
07 A. Oh, yes, I think so.
08 Q. Do you have a general recollection of what was discussed?
09 A. No, not really. I think he simply told me about the group
10 and what their point was, I believe, in having these papers and
11 why they were reading from them, because they found them so
12 interesting and worthwhile.
13 Q. Now, you said in 19- -- when you joined in 1932, there
14 were 32 papers you had to read to catch up on.
15 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. Do you know how many papers are in The Urantia Book?
17 A. 196 or something like that.
18 Q. So, after you joined in 1932, there were 32 papers to
19 start, did more papers start arriving while you were at the
20 Forum?
21 A. Yes, they did come -- some more papers did come, I
22 believe, after I got into The Forum, more papers.
23 Q. And do you recall much about the actual meetings? That
24 was a long time ago and I don't need specifics, but do you
25 recall the meetings on Sunday?
00677 {11:10:58am}
01 A. Oh, yes.
02 Q. And do you recall how they were structured? And let me
03 explain. Do you know when they started?
04 A. Yes. 2 o'clock, I think it was, they started.
05 Q. And do you recall, were there two portions -- I mean, was
06 there a break in between during the meeting?
07 A. Yes, I think there was, as I recall. We'd read part of
08 the paper from 2:00 to about 3:00 and we'd have a little break
09 and then we'd go back in and they would continue reading the
10 paper and finish it for that afternoon.
11 Q. And do you recall whether you or your husband submitted
12 questions?
13 A. Yes, we did. Uh-huh.
14 Q. Did you submit many questions?
15 A. I submitted some but I was really quite so new with this
16 whole thing that I didn't -- I think I wasn't smart enough to
17 ask too many questions, but Bill asked quite a few.
18 Q. Now, let's move ahead a little bit. Do you recall when
19 there came a time that a decision was made or a decision was
20 being made that perhaps these papers should be published?
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. Do you recall that?
23 A. Uh-huh, yes.
24 Q. Do you recall whether or not you were asked to contribute
25 or to buy books ahead of time?
00678 {11:12:38am}
01 A. Uh-huh, yes, I did. We were asked to begin contributing
02 because when the book was to be published, we'd have enough
03 money to pay for it.
04 Q. Do you recall how much you or your husband contributed?
05 A. I don't know the amount of money but we bought a whole
06 case of books. After it was published, we all -- so many of
07 us, all members of the group, arrived at 533 and we all came
08 out with a great big case of books to take home and give to our
09 friends. But I don't know how much money we gave.
10 Q. Do you recall whether your father-in-law, your
11 husband's --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I'm sorry?
14 A. Yes. Well, Bill's father met with Dr. Sadler one day and
15 wanted to, well, pay for all the books. I mean, he wanted to
16 pay for the publication and the doctor said no, that he would
17 much rather have everybody in the group contribute rather than
18 have one large sum from one person. So that's how we all
19 contributed, and father Hales gave his share but not the whole
20 thing.
21 Q. Do you know why Mr. Sadler didn't want Mr. Hales to
22 contribute the full amount?
23 A. Well, because I think he felt it would be wiser to have
24 everyone contribute to this particular cause and I think he
25 just felt everyone should have a part in it, really.
00679 {11:14:33am}
01 Q. Do you recall -- and I don't want a precise year -- but do
02 you recall generally whether or not there were discussions
03 about publishing the Urantia Papers in some sort of book form
04 before the book was actually published?
05 A. I don't remember precisely but I'm sure there was
06 discussion because I think that was probably the goal, to get
07 these papers published into book form.
08 Q. Did you -- Did your fiancé force you to join The Forum?
09 A. No. No, indeed. No, he invited me to join and because I
10 had faith in him -- I was not too, you know, particularly
11 interested in this strange occurrence but because my husband-
12 to-be was interested in it and I was interested in him, I did
13 what he would like me to do, so I said yes, I would join.
14 Q. Did at some point, did that reluctance or, you know,
15 uncertainty about what was going on change?
16 A. Oh, yes. After I heard a few papers and had met all the
17 other Forum members, I became quite interested and very willing
18 to attend the meetings, and we went every Sunday, really,
19 practically every Sunday, and I became more interested. The
20 more I heard, the more interested I was.
21 Q. Are you still -- Do you still read The Urantia Book?
22 A. Uh-huh, yes, I do.
23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I don't have any more questions.
24 Thank you very much, Ms. Hales.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Abowitz?
00680 {11:16:28am}
01 MR. ABOWITZ: I have nothing, Your Honor. Thank you.
02 THE COURT: You may step down and you'll be excused.
03 THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
04 THE COURT: You'll be excused.
05 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may she have some help?
06 THE COURT: Yes.
07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm derelict in my duty.
08 THE COURT: As I say, it's a bit of an obstacle
09 course.
10 (WITNESS EXCUSED)
11 THE COURT: Call your next witness, Mr. Hill.
12 MR. HILL: Your Honor, we're going to read a brief
13 portion from the deposition of Helen Carlson taken in The
14 Urantia Foundation/Maaherra case.
15 THE COURT: Who will be reading?
16 MR. HILL: If it's okay with Your Honor, I will --
17 THE COURT: You'll do both?
18 MR. HILL: Actually, I'll just read the questions and
19 the answers in the interest of time.
20 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me
21 explain again, as I did earlier, that Counselor Hill will be
22 reading from a deposition which is a sworn statement taken of a
23 witness, questions and answers that are sworn to and answered
24 and typed down and certified. The Federal Rules of Civil
25 Procedure allow that to be done instead of requiring the
00681 {11:17:56am}
01 witness to be here live.
02 You're not to discount the testimony simply because it
03 comes to you in deposition form but give it such weight and
04 value as you deem it appropriate to receive.
05 MR. HILL: Thank you, Your Honor.
06 This is the deposition of Helen Carlson that was taken on
07 June 29th, 1994 in the case Urantia Foundation vs. Kristen
08 Maaherra in the United States District Court for the District
09 of Arizona, case number 91-0325.
10 (DEPOSITION EXCERPTS OF HELEN CARLSON WERE READ TO THE
11 JURY, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN
12 COURT:)
13 MR. HILL: I think that's it, Your Honor. I just
14 want to check for any more of their designations.
15 That's all.
16 THE COURT: Any counter-designations, counsel?
17 MR. HILL: I read their counters.
18 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
19 MR. HILL: Peter?
20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I call Carolyn Kendall, Your
21 Honor.
22 THE COURT: Come right up and raise your right hand
23 and be sworn, please.
24 (WITNESS SWORN)
25
00682 {11:33:03am}
01 CAROLYN KENDALL,
02 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
03 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
04 THE COURT: If you can work your way around the
05 obstacle course to the witness chair here, I'll ask you to
06 state your full name and spell your last name, please. You can
07 adjust that microphone, that lower one, if you need to.
08 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. My name is Carolyn Kendall.
09 I was originally Carolyn Bowman-Kendall.
10 THE COURT: Spell your last name, please.
11 THE WITNESS: K-E-N-D-A-L-L.
12 THE COURT: Mr. Schoenthaler.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER:
15 Q. Would you please continue introducing yourself to the
16 jury.
17 A. Okay. I'm from Wheeling, Illinois. I live there with my
18 husband, Tom Kendall, of 48 years. We have five children, ages
19 39 to 47. We have seven grandchildren, ages five months to 23
20 years. I am employed part-time with Illinois Association For
21 Gifted Children in my general home area. I have worked with
22 accounting firms. I've worked for The Fellowship For Readers
23 of The Urantia Book. I was -- I worked for the school
24 district -- local school district office in my hometown for
25 about 10 years.
00683 {11:35:02am}
01 Probably the most interesting job I've ever had was in the
02 office of Dr. William S. Sadler back in 1952 to '54 and then
03 again in 1957 where I performed general administrative work,
04 including administering psychological tests, assisting with
05 shock treatments. I did proofreading and editing for the
06 manuscripts that Dr. Sadler wrote. He was an author of 42
07 books and he was -- I did quite a bit of billing and general
08 office work during that time. I was employed primarily as a
09 receptionist.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 You say you worked for Dr. Sadler in the '50s?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When did you first become aware of The Urantia Book?
14 A. On -- well, it wasn't The Urantia Book at the time. They
15 were Urantia Papers. The first time I ever heard the word
16 "Urantia" was on October 14th, 1951 when I was just short of my
17 19th birthday.
18 Q. And since the time you first heard it, have you become
19 familiar with the book?
20 A. Oh, yes, yes. I've been a constant reader since that
21 time.
22 Q. Have you held positions in any organizations --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- for readers of The Urantia Book?
25 A. Yes. Well, beginning in 1956 I was a member of the First
00684 {11:37:02am}
01 Urantia Society.
02 Q. May I ask you what the First Urantia Society is?
03 A. It's a membership group of readers. In fact, it was the
04 first Society of Urantia Brotherhood. There are approximately
05 25, 30 societies now and ours was the first in Chicago. I
06 continue to be a member of that society. In fact, I'm
07 currently the president and have served another term as
08 president prior to this one, about 10, 12 years ago.
09 As far as Urantia Brotherhood goes, which is the parent
10 organization of these societies, I was fraternal relations
11 committee chair and I served three years as vice president of
12 The Brotherhood.
13 The Brotherhood became known as The Fellowship for Readers
14 of The Urantia Book in 1989 and I have continued to be -- serve
15 on committees of The Fellowship since then. I'm currently on
16 the publication committee of The Fellowship. I do editing --
17 Q. What --
18 A. -- and some writing.
19 Q. I'm sorry. Please continue.
20 A. Okay. I need some water.
21 Q. Sure.
22 A. I'm a little dry here.
23 Q. Ms. Kendall, let me bring you back to the earlier days.
24 You mentioned Urantia Brotherhood and I think the jury has
25 heard a little bit about that. I understand there's another
00685 {11:38:48am}
01 organization that is actually now a party in this case: Urantia
02 Foundation.
03 A. Yes.
04 Q. Let's talk about Urantia Brotherhood and Urantia
05 Foundation.
06 A. Uh-huh.
07 Q. When was Urantia Foundation formed?
08 A. 1950. Its headquarters was located at 333 North Michigan
09 Avenue in Chicago. It was a separate organization from Urantia
10 Brotherhood in that its makeup consisted of five trustees,
11 whereas The Brotherhood was a social outreach coordinatative
12 type of organization.
13 The Foundation, it was understood, had -- its primary
14 purpose was to publish The Urantia Book, to translate the book,
15 and to protect the book. Whereas The Brotherhood and its
16 successor organization, newly-named organization, its purpose
17 is social and outreach and to coordinate functions and
18 activities and to organize educational programs.
19 Q. Now, The Urantia Foundation, when this started in 1950, it
20 has remained pretty much the same form until today?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And The Brotherhood was organized after Urantia
23 Foundation?
24 A. Yes, in 1955, in January.
25 Q. Okay. And I think there's been some testimony but I want
00686 {11:40:17am}
01 you to go into it. The Brotherhood was organized in 1955 and
02 continued in its form with societies until approximately when?
03 A. It still continues. It just has a different name.
04 Q. Let's go back to 1951 --
05 A. Yes.
06 Q. -- when you heard Urantia. How did you hear the term?
07 A. Well, I asked my father if I could join The Forum, my
08 father, having been a member of The Forum since 1923. And I
09 had developed an interest in spiritual ideas, religious ideas
10 that I at the time felt were not being addressed by the church
11 that I was attending. And I had a boyfriend who began telling
12 me about religious and spiritual and philosophical ideas, so I
13 kind of awakened to some of these interests, so I did ask my
14 father what The Forum was all about that he had been attending
15 for many years. So, he -- I said, "Well, I'd like to join,"
16 and he managed to hide his elation because he had been involved
17 with this for so long and it meant so much to him, and he said
18 "Yes, I'll make an appointment with Dr. Sadler and you can go
19 down and be interviewed and decide whether you would like to be
20 a part of it." So he did, within a few days, make the
21 appointment and I went to meet with Doctor on Sunday morning,
22 October 14th, 1951.
23 Q. And when you went to meet Dr. Sadler, had you met him
24 before?
25 A. No, I had never met him.
00687 {11:42:21am}
01 Q. You say your father had been attending Forum meetings?
02 A. Yes.
03 Q. How do you know that?
04 A. Well, he disappeared on Sunday afternoons and he -- he and
05 my mother occasionally discussed the fact that he was going to
06 a meeting that day, going to The Forum. I had no idea what
07 The Forum was. I had never heard the name Urantia until the
08 day of my interview.
09 Q. So you had heard about The Forum?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Did you have any understanding as to what went on at these
12 Forum meetings?
13 A. Well, I knew it had to do with religion, spiritual things,
14 the nature of God. It wasn't until after I began reading
15 The Urantia Book that I realized that my father had been
16 teaching me my entire life. So I was raised on the teachings
17 of The Urantia Book without attribution.
18 Q. And let's go now to when you actually first met
19 Dr. Sadler. I think you gave the date. Let's stick with the
20 generalities.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. Tell me about the meeting. What was the context? I mean,
23 was it at 533 Diversey?
24 A. Yes, it was at his apartment, which was on the third floor
25 of the building at 533 Diversey. As I say, it was on a Sunday
00688 {11:43:41am}
01 morning. He had been described to me before I went as somewhat
02 portly and, which he was, and he was very warm and friendly.
03 Having known my father for all those years, he was, I'm sure,
04 interested in meeting the daughter, and that I was evidencing
05 some interest, and he welcomed me warmly and sat me down and
06 offered me a cold drink and he proceeded to tell me a story
07 about the origin of the Urantia Papers, how this had all begun
08 and how things had developed over the years, what tests he had
09 attempted to apply to determine their validity and their
10 authenticity, and the general idea that it was going to be a
11 published book at some point.
12 Q. Now, let's go back to something you said. You mentioned
13 tests to determine authenticity or validity.
14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. What about that, what did he mean by that?
16 A. Well, he had a background in experiencing people who were
17 claiming -- who were getting -- claiming to experience psychic
18 phenomena. Many of these people were, he determined later,
19 were frauds, they were either self-deluded or they were just
20 outright deliberate frauds. They would hear voices, there was
21 automatic writing, there was automatic speaking. He had great
22 experience in dealing with these kinds of people and, in fact,
23 this had impelled him to study psychiatry with Sigmund Freud to
24 determine more about how the subconscious mind works. So, when
25 he encountered this thing, he felt that sooner or later he
00689 {11:46:11am}
01 would be able to det