Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:04:12 -0600
To: urantial@ubook.org, UBtalk@utalk.org
From: Kristen Maaherra <urantian@concentric.net>
Cc: FreeUrantia@cuenet.com
Subject: ubtalk: Reply to Sage Waitts from Kristen
 

Sage Waitts (http://www.teleport.com/~paradigm/graphics) writes:

"I asked Tonia about the comment made in San Francisco regarding Kristen rescinding her signature on a recent agreement with the Foundation which seems to result in no one being able to put the book on the internet for free downloads. Tonia said Kristen was offered a license for the DOS version of the book (which others then could download from her site) but refused it because nothing short of the abolition of the copyright will do. If I have this wrong, I would appreciate being corrected by anyone who was there."

Kristen replies:

Sage, I wasn't there, but I certainly have some "corrections."

1. I have not signed an agreement with the Foundation in the Arizona (copyright) lawsuit. If I had, the lawsuit would be over. I don't think a person can "rescind" a settlement agreement; it's a court document as soon as it's signed. Mo and I have been discussing a possible settlement for a couple of months. If the trustees are running around the west coast in their PR meetings handing out such disinformation, maybe I should "learn my lesson" and not talk to them at all . . .

2. Richard Keeler signed a settlement agreement. I did not. I considered the agreement as FAXed over to me merely a "first step" (something in writing) of a fairly involved process of discussion and compromise.

3. Also - I have heard that both Richard and Mo are saying (when they aren't saying I signed the agreement and then backed out) that I "promised" to sign it if Mo became a trustee. In Portland, Rich actually told my daughter-in-law to "remind me" to make good on my word about signing it. The closest I can think of coming to such a "promise" was telling Mo a long, involved story about how I signed a settlement agreement (concerning trademarks) in the Arizona case some years ago - then the Foundation sued me again (in Colorado) - and I couldn't argue the merits of the case, I could only argue whether or not I "broke" the settlement agreement I had signed. I told Mo if I signed an agreement, I wouldn't break it, but that I don't trust the Foundation because of what they did last time I signed something with them. But if he became a trustee, I'd at least consider talking to the Foundation - which is exactly what Mo and I have been doing - talking about the possibility of settling.

4. If the trustees wanted people to be able to put the Papers "on the Internet for free downloads," they would. I'm certainly not stopping them.

5. The trustees did indeed offer me a license for the DOS FolioViews, but I believe they have no right to license me (or anyone.) To accept a license from them means I believe they have the right to grant a license - and I don't believe that. But why do they blame ME that "others" can't "download" from my site? By the way, I don't even have a site, or a home page - you might recall I was sued in Colorado over putting the Banner of Michael and the Urantia Papers on a home page that wasn't even mine.

6. "Nothing short of the abolition of the copyright will do." In the 1970's, when Bob Burton was sued, he INTENDED to take out the copyright. He was a forum member, and a lawyer, and he knew the Foundation did not have a valid copyright. That is, he knew that the Foundation lied to the copyright office in order to obtain a copyright. I did not know those things when I first gave away index disks. My intention was not to abolish the copyright, but to evangelize my religion. In fact, I try to make that clear in a letter I wrote recently to Mo. Tonia told my daughter-in-law in Portland that she liked that letter. So now she purposely "misunderstands" me and misquotes me? Go figure.

Two Ideas:

1. The Rich Man. Jesus didn't counsel the rich man, "You've got it, now go do good with it." Jesus didn't say, "you have a million dollars - I don't care how you got it - now, go do good with it." No, Jesus said the opposite. He said, "Purge it. You must purge your wealth of anything you obtained falsely."

Copyright is intellectual property. The trustees would have us think they "own" a copyright - never mind how they obtained it - they're going to start "fresh," they tell us. They're going to "do good" with the copyright.

But the trustees' intellectual wealth, copyright, has been obtained by lying about the superhuman authorship of the Urantia Papers. Their "property," copyright, was obtained by fraud and deceit over a long period of time.

If anyone out there in this lemming-like rush to Unity cares to listen to Jesus, don't you think that the part of the trustees' intellectual property, intellectual wealth, that was obtained falsely must be purged?

The trustees are actually saying that the Divine Counselor's words, the Mighty Messenger's words, the Melchizedek's words, and - yes, even Jesus' words - are the intellectual property of 5 men.

The trustees would have us believe that Jesus' words - which are meant to be a gift from God to the BILLIONS of people on this planet for some generations to come - are OWNED by 5 "wealthy" men.

Are believers in the Urantia Papers so desperate for leadership that we'll let ourselves be duped by 5 men who call themselves "readers"?

"The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power." [from Paper 195]

2. The Stone Boat. I admit Mo and Gard are charming. Nonetheless, this great rush to Unity looks to me like people in a life raft sinking in the middle of the ocean saying, "Isn't it wonderful we're together?"

But there's no VALUE in being together. Unity is a creed without content. Unity is not a high goal in itself.

Can't you see that the trustees' house has "been left to them desolate"? Can't you see the life raft "abides not in the truth" and is sinking in a great storm?

The values on which the trustees base their power and control of our religion - copyright and trademark - are based on a desertion of truth, a denial of the superhuman authorship, a denial of the revelatory nature of the Urantia Papers, and a lack of recognition of the superhuman government of all creation here on Urantia.

IF the trustees have always had a valid copyright, WHY did they lie about the superhuman authorship? IF they had a valid copyright, they would not have needed to lie in court, ever.

The Urantia religion is the religion OF Jesus - not the religion ABOUT Jesus. And the religion of Jesus cannot be built on lies.

Much love, and God bless you, Sage, Kristen.