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 r