Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 16:42:38 -0600
From: Kristen Maaherra <urantian@concentric.net>URANTIA FOUNDATION, a non-profit foundation, Plaintiff,
KRISTEN MAAHERRA, Defendant.
Civ-91-0325-PHX-WKU (SMM)
("The Arizona Case")
June 5, 1998PLAINTIFF URANTIA FOUNDATION'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW Plaintiff Urantia Foundation (the "Foundation") and files this motion seeking the imposition of a permanent injunction against Kristen Maaherra ("Maaherra") that bars her from reproducing and distributing The Urantia Book. In support of its motion, the Foundation shows the Court the following memorandum in support thereof:
The Foundation commenced these proceedings in 1991 to enjoin Maaherra from acts of copyright and trademark infringement. On October 25, 1995, this Court entered its Amended Final Judgment, which dismissed the Foundation's claim for copyright infringement and declared the Foundation's copyright to be invalid and unenforceable. In Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1997), the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court and granted summary judgment for the Foundation on its claim of copyright infringement. The court held that the Foundation's renewal copyright was valid, and that Maaherra was guilty of infringement. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings regarding relief. Id. The only relief sought by the Foundation is a permanent injunction.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Maaherra violated the Foundation's copyright and has given the Court no reason to believe she will desist from future infringement. The Urantia Book holds great religious significance for Maaherra. Because of her religious beliefs, Maaherra feels that it is her duty to disseminate The Urantia Book, regardless of the Foundation's copyright.
Maaherra helped create, compile, distribute and finance several study aids for The Urantia Book and admits to distributing over 100 free diskettes containing The Urantia Book prior to initiation of this lawsuit in 1991. First Maaherra Depo., pp. 14-15; Third Maaherra Depo., pp. 7-8. Maaherra knew (at the time she created and distributed the electronic version of The Urantia Book) that the Foundation held the copyright to The Urantia Book; however, she did not seek permission from the Foundation to create and distribute the electronic version of The Urantia Book or the study aid for The Urantia Book. Second Maaherra Depo., pp. 36-39. Maaherra has advocated the dissemination of The Urantia Book, and she has stated her belief that the Urantia Papers (which comprise the text of The Urantia Book are a gift from God to everyone on the planet. Third Depo., pp. 34-3 )5. Maaherra's personal view is that The Urantia Book should "be on bookshelves in bookstores so that people browsing don't have to ask for it," and that more people need to be made aware of the book. First Depo., p. 13. Furthermore, she is critical of the Foundation for delisting The Urantia Book with distributors. Id., at 13-14. Maaherra feels she was authorized by God to distribute the text of The Urantia Book, and that God's authorization was the only permission she needed. Second Depo., pp. 35, 41.
From the inception of this litigation, Maaherra has remained steadfast in her belief that it is God's will that she distribute The Urantia Book, and that she has done nothing wrong by following God's will. Id. at 38-39; Second Depo., pp. 35, 39. She continues to assert that there is a higher moral or religious law than man's secular law, and that she was not wrong in distributing the diskettes with the text of the Urantia Papers on them. Third Depo., pp. 65-68.
Accordingly, Maaherra is tempted to discard secular law when it comes into conflict with her strong religious convictions. For example, shortly after the Ninth Circuit declared the Foundation's copyright valid and enforceable, Maaherra authored a newsletter entitled Lies Become Law discussing Judge Schroeder's ruling in the Ninth Circuit Opinion. The newsletter characterized Schroeder's opinion as "an affront, a slap in the face, a travesty of justice, and an abridgement of my rights to my beliefs." Third Depo., pp. 54-55, 58. She goes on to say "that for Schroeder to say, I (Maaherra) and with me the thousands of religionists who also want the Urantia Papers in the public domain - have no 'superior copyright interests' is another enormous slap in the face to religionists. " Id. at 62-63.
Finally, Maaherra still owns a CD maker, a computer which has a copy of the text of The Urantia Boo on the hard drive, and she has several sets of diskettes which have the whole or partial text of The Urantia Book on them. Id. at 31-32.
An interesting wrinkle in these proceedings is Maaherra's testimony in her most recent deposition that her plans for developing any study aids or derivative works relating to The Urantia Book in the future depends on the scope of the injunction that this Court will give the Foundation. Id. at 28-30. In her deposition, Maaherra stated as follows:
"Q. At this point in time, do you have any plans for developing any study aids or derivative works relating to The Urantia Book in the future?
A. It depends on the kind of injunction Urbom is going to come up with." Id. at 28.
Despite the Ninth Circuit's ruling, she is currently in the process of preparing a CD-ROM version of The Urantia Book with the intent of distributing it to others. Id. at pp. 29-30.
III. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Remedies Available Under the Copyright Act.
The Copyright Act authorizes the granting of injunctive relief to the prevailing party in an infringement action. 17 U.S.C. 502(a). An injunction is appropriate where there is "substantial likelihood of further infringement of plaintiff's copyright. " Rare Blue Music, Inc. v. Guttadauro, 616 F. Supp. 1528, 1529 (D.C. Mass. 1985). The Act further provides that the prevailing party may elect either actual damages or statutory damages as a remedy for copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. 504(b). Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984). Statutory "in lieu" damages are mandated in cases where there is not a showing of the copyright proprietor's actual loss and may be given where profits or damages are difficult to prove. 17 U.S.C. 504(a-c). "In lieu" damages range from $250 to $10,000 for each incident of infringement. 17 U.S.C. 504(b), (c)(1); United Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Spree, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 1242. 1247 (D. Michigan 1984) (maximum statutory damages were appropriate because defendant's conduct was wilful; defendants testified that they did not pay much attention to copyrights and felt no duty to examine or inquire concerning them). Where the infringement was committed "willfully," as in the present case, the court in its discretion may award statutory damages in a sum of not more than $100,000 for the infringement of each particular work. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Myhia, 948 F. Supp. 923, 940 (N.D. Cal. 1996). Further, under 17 U.S.C. 505, the Court may in its discretion award the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (Footnote 1: The Fifth Circuit has held that "[a]lthough attorney's fees [under 505] are awarded in the courts discretion, they are the rule rather than the exception and should be awarded routinely." Micromanivulator Co. v. Bough, 779 F.2d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 1985). End of Footnote 1).
Although the Copyright Act clearly entitles the Foundation to recover substantial damages, including costs and attorney's fees, above and beyond the permanent injunction sought for Maaherra's infringement, the Foundation has decided to forego any request for damages, costs, or attorney's fees in order to impress upon the Court the priority and necessity of a permanent injunction against Maaherra barring her from further copying The Urantia Book.
B. The Foundation Is Entitled To A Permanent Injunction Against Maaherra's Infringing Activities.
Section 502(a) of the Copyright Act provides that the court "may . . . grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." 17 U.S.C. 502(a). The granting of a permanent injunction is within the discretion of the trial court. Id. A plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction in a copyright action where liability has been established and there is the threat of continuing violations. Universal Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp). of America, 659 F.2d 963, 976 (9th Cir. 1981), rev'd on other grounds, 464 U.S. 417, 104 S.Ct. 774 (1984); Encyclopaedia Britannica Ed. Com. v. Crooks, 542 F. Supp. 1156, 1187 (2d Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has taken the strong position that "[g]enerally, it would appear to be an abuse of discretion to deny a permanent injunction where liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing infringement." Universal City Studios, 659 F.2d at 976, filing 3 Nimmer on Copyright 14.06 [B] at 14-53-14-56 (1981); Pacific and Southern Company, Inc. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1499 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to issue an injunction where there was past infringement and a substantial likelihood of future infringement).
In Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F. 3d at 963, the Ninth Circuit held that the Foundation's renewal copyright was valid and that Maaherra infringed the Foundation's copyright. Therefore, to support the issuance of a permanent injunction, the Foundation need only show that there is a likelihood of future infringement of its copyright.
A defendant's willful infringement establishes a threat of continuing violations of a copyright. Halnat Publishing Co. v. L.A.P.A., Inc., 669 F. Supp. 933, 938 (D. Minn. 1987). (Footnote 2: See Bridge Publications, Inc. v. Vien, 827 F. Supp. 629, 633 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (granting religious organization a permanent injunction for defendant's unauthorized copying of the organization's literary works for use in a religious course without engaging in a discussion of the likelihood of future infringement). End of Footnote 2). Maaherra admits that she knew at the tune she created the electronic version of The Urantia Book that the Foundation held the copyright to The Urantia Book. Yet she did not seek permission from the Foundation to create the electronic version of The Urantia Book or the study aid for The Urantia Book. Second Maaherra Depo., pp. 36-39. Accordingly, Maaherra's disregard for the Foundation's rights in copying The Urantia Book amounts to willful copyright infringement. In her defense, Maaherra has asserted that she was authorized by God to distribute the text of The Urantia Book. and that God's authorization was the only permission she needed. Id. at 35, 41. Finally, Maaherra has testified that her plans for developing any study aids or derivative works relating to The Urantia Book in the future depends on the scope of the injunction that this Court will give the Foundation. Third Maaherra Depo., pp. 28-30. In her deposition, Maaherra stated the following:
"Q. At this point in time, do you have any plans for developing any study aids or derivative works relating to The Urantia Book in the future?
A. It depends on the kind of injunction Urbom is going to come up with. Id. at 28."
In other words, Maaherra is planning to infringe upon the Foundation's copyright to the extent this Court leaves her free to do so. Maaherra even admits that she is preparing a CD- ROM version of The Urantia Book to make it easier for people to use, and intends to distribute it. Id. at 29-30.
A history of continuing infringement will also establish a threat of continuing violations of a copyright. Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp.1, 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1542 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); see also Orth-O-Vision, Inc. v. Home Box Office, 474 F. Supp. 672, 685-86 (S.D. N.Y. 1979) (Infringement existed for 4 years before suit was filed). In Basic Books, Inc., the court held that there was a significant threat that the defendant would continue to infringe plaintiff's copyrights since the defendant had conducted its infringing activities for several years. Basic Books, Inc., 758 F. Supp. at 1542.
Maaherra admits to distributing over 100 free diskettes containing The Urantia Book prior to commencing the lawsuit in 1991. Third Maaherra Depo. pp. 7-8. This significant history of extensive violations shows a likelihood that Maaherra will resume such distributions to the extent they are not enjoined.
Maaherra now conveniently claims that her future plans depend on what the Court does. >From such testimony, Maaherra's counsel may argue that her testimony shows a respect for the law, and that she is not a candidate for further infringement. However. Maaherra's testimony in her initial two depositions and her post-judgment deposition calls into question the sincerity of her willingness to recognize and respect the Foundation's copyright.
In Walt Disney Co. v. Powell, 897 F.2d 565, 568 (D.C. Cir. 1990) the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to ignore the defendant's voluntary cessation of infringement of the defendant's [sic] copyright and to impose an injunction. In Walt Disney, the defendant voluntarily ceased to infringe the plaintiffs copyrights; however, the court found that the defendant's decision was simply made because the action "best suited him at the time" and thus "as the illegality of his affairs faced increasing exposure, (the defendant] suddenly reformed". Id. The court held that based on the Machiavellian nature of the defendant's decision, it was likely that, if unchecked by the Court, the defendant would attempt to infringe plaintiff s copyright in the future. Id. (Footnote 3: The court even affirmed the trial courts extension of the injunction against future infringement of copyrights not in suit, reasoning that where there is liability and a history of continuing infringement and a significant threat of future infringement remains, it is appropriate to permanently enjoin the future infringement of works owned by the plaintiff but not in suit. Id. at 568; Encyclopedia Britannica, Educational Com. v. Crooks 542 F. Supp. at 1187; Orth-O-Vision, Inc., 474 F. Supp. At 685-86. End of Footnote 3).
Maaherra has stated that she thinks that The Urantia Book should "be on bookshelves in bookstores so that people browsing don't have to ask for it," and that more people need to be made aware of the book. First Maaherra Depo., p. 13. She is critical of the Foundation for having previously delisted The Urantia Book with distributors. Id. at 13-14. She helped create, compile, distribute and finance several study aids for The Urantia Book. Id. at 14-15. For Maaherra, The Urantia Book holds great religious significance. As such, she feels that it is her duty to disseminate The Urantia Book, regardless of the Foundation's copyright. Now that the threat of an injunction is upon her, she may claim that she will respect the copyright, absent a court order. The Court should see such a claim as a Machiavellian attempt to avoid an injunction, so that she can continue to distribute The Urantia Book and infringe the Foundation's copyrights. (Footnote 4: Maaherra may, like Powell, simply take "the action that best suited him at the time; he was caught red handed, thus 'as the illegality of his affairs face increasing exposure, Powell suddenly reformed.'" Walt Disney, 897 F.2d at 568. End of Footnote 4).
Whatever respect Maaherra may have allegedly developed towards the copyright laws is not enough to overcome the Foundation's right to a permanent injunction. In Broadcast Music Inc. v. Blueberry Hill Family Restaurants, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 474, 483 (D. Nev. 1995), the court held that the determination that the defendant infringed the copyrights, licensed by an organization, wan-anted a permanent injunctive even though the defendant had ceased the infringing activity and entered into a licensing agreement with another licensing organization. Id.
In granting the injunction. the court stated: "Notwithstanding that [defendant] has entered into licensing agreements with [a third party], the Court cannot rest assured that [defendant] will assiduously avoid continuing violations vis a vis [plaintiff]. As shown above, [defendant's] violations of (plaintiffs] rights were clear. The arrogance with which [defendant] thwarted [plaintiff' s] efforts to protect its copyright interests, and the thin excuses (defendant] offered when confronted with the accusations in [plaintiffs] complaint, do not inspire confidence that [defendant] poses no threat of future infringements." Id.; Ford Motor Co. v. B & H Supply, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 975, 991 (D. Minn. 1986) (holding that a permanent injunction was appropriate to enjoin defendants from infringing plaintiffs copyright because of the substantial likelihood of future violations, despite defendant's substantial compliance with the court's preliminary injunction and their having taken steps to avoid future infringement of plaintiff's copyright).
What is particularly troubling in this case is that Maaherra retains the means and desire to make CD-ROM versions of The Urantia Book. In Sega Enterprises Ltd., 948 F. Supp. at 940, a case which mirrors some of Maaherra's infringing activities, the defendant was the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS"). This BBS provided internet users access to a system where they could retrieve information from the bulletin board by downloading video games for their own use, and in violation of plaintiff's copyrights. The Court found that the defendant was contributorily infringing the plaintiffs copyright. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction against the defendant against providing access to the copyrighted video games. Id. at 940. In granting the permanent injunction, the court stated:
"Here, [defendant's] contributory infringement of [plaintiffs] copyright, combined with the return of [defendant's] computer equipment to him, constitutes a threat of continued violations absent an injunction. Specifically, because [defendant] maintains the computer and other equipment necessary to run his BBS and may continue in the facilitation of the uploading and downloading of [defendant's] game programs, there is a threat of continued violation." Id.; see Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Sabella, 1996 WL 780560 at *15 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (same holding); L'A.N.Z.A. Research Intern. v. Quality King Distributors, 98 F.3d 1109, 1120 (9th Cir. 1996) (Ninth Circuit held that where the defendant still possessed plaintiff's products in its inventory, a threat of future infringement existed); Peer Intern. Com v. Luna Records, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 560, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (a viable threat of future inffingement exists where there is past infringement and a retention of infringing articles).
Maaherra testified that she owns a CD maker, a computer that has a copy of the text of The Urantia Book on the hard drive, and she has several sets of diskettes which have the whole or partial text of The Urantia Book on them. Third Maaherra Depo., pp. 31-32.
Another important issue in the Court's consideration of the grant or denial of a permanent injunction is Maaherra's unwavering belief that it is God's will that she distribute The Urantia Book, and that she has done nothing wrong by following God's will. Id. at 38-39; Second Maaherra Depo., pp. 35, 39. Maaherra states that the only authorization she needs to distribute The Urantia Book is from God, Jesus, and the Divine Minister. Second Depo., p. 39. Throughout this case, Maaherra has advocated the dissemination of The Urantia Book, and she has stated her belief that the Urantia Papers (which comprise the text of The Urantia Book) are a gift from God to everyone on the planet. Third Maaherra Depo., pp. 34-35.
In addition, based on her own testimony, Maaherra admits she neither respects nor adheres to secular law. Shortly after the Ninth Circuit rendered its opinion in this case, Maaherra authored a newsletter entitled Lies Become Law discussing Judge Schroeder's ruling in the Ninth Circuit Opinion. Id. at 54-55. (Footnote 5: Filed herewith as Exhibit 3 to Third Maaherra Deposition. End of Footnote 5). In the newsletter, Maaherra characterized Schroeder's opinion as "an affront, a slap in the face, a travesty of justice, and an abridgement of my rights to my beliefs." Id. at 58. She further stated that "the false shepherds have let slip the wolves of law among the master's flock." (Footnote 6: In her deposition she explained that the false shepherd is the Foundation, and the wolves of law include the Ninth Circuit. Third Maaherra Depo., pp. 59-61. End of Footnote 6). Id. at 58-60. She goes on to say "that for Schroeder to say, I (Maaherra) and with me the thousands of religionists who also want the Urantia Papers in the public domain -- have no 'superior copyright interests' is another enormous slap in the face to religionists." Id. at 62-63. In other words, Maaherra believes her "copyright interest" outweighs the Foundation's interest. This belief is a recipe for future infringement unless checked by the Court.
Maaherra continues to assert that there is a higher moral or religious law than man's secular law, and that she was not wrong in distributing the diskettes with the text of the Urantia Papers on them. Id. at 65-68. See U.S. v. Laerdahl Mfg. Co., 73 F.3d 852, 855-56 (9th Cir. 1995) (violation of statute combined with intransigence or self-justification justifies injunctive relief). Based on Maaherra's own testimony and her intransigence, the Foundation submits (1) that there is a substantial likelihood of continuing violations of the Foundation's copyrights; and (2) under Universal Studios, the Court would abuse its discretion if it failed to grant the Foundation a permanent injunction against Maaherra.
C. The Scope of Permanent Injunction Should Be Consistent with Maaherra's Infringement.
A permanent injunction is issued in order to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright. 17 U.S.C. 502(a). The scope of an injunction should be consistent with the infringement and therefore should generally be no broader than the infringement. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando-Am., Inc., 798 F. Supp. 1499, 1522 (D. Colo. 1992), citing 3 Nimmer on Copyright 14.06 [c] at 14-92 (1991), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993). A product that completely reproduces a copyrighted work should be wholly enjoined. Burrouizhs v. Metro Goldman Mayor, Inc., 683 F.2d 610, 620 n.9 (2nd Cir. 1982). Maaherra copied and distributed the text of The Urantia Book. Therefore, the injunction should prohibit her from copying The Urantia Book.
D. The Foundation Has the Right to Request the Court to Order the Destruction of the Infringing Articles.
Section 503(b) of the Copyright Act provides that "the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies ... found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights." 17 U.S.C. 503(b). In Ford Motor Co., 646 F. Supp at 991, the court required the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff all infringing items used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights for the plaintiff to dispose of as it deemed appropriate. Ford Motor Co., 646 F. Supp. at 991; Joy Mfg. Co. v. CGM Valve & Gauge Co., Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1387, 1399 (S.D. Tex. 1989).
Because the evidence demonstrates both copyright infringement, and that Maaherra, if unchecked, will continue to unlawfully copy The Urantia Book, the Foundation has the right to request that all infringing works, should be delivered to the Court or the Foundation for destruction, including hard copies of the text of The Urantia Book, computer diskettes containing the text of The Urantia Book, compact discs containing the text of The Urantia Book, and all other copies of The Urantia Book in Maaherra's possession, custody, or control. Although the Copyright Act clearly entitles the Foundation to seek the destruction of the above items, the Foundation has decided to forego such a request at this time in order to impress upon the Court the importance of a permanent injunction barring Maaherra from copying The Urantia Book. If the Court grants the Foundation an injunction against Maaherra's infringing activities. the Foundation has no objection to Maaherra retaining copies of The Urantia [sic] for her personal use. If, however, Maaherra does not comply with the injunction issued by this Court, the Foundation will seek the destruction of all infringing articles in Maaherra's possession, custody, or control as a sanction for her contempt of the Court's order.
The Foundation submits that the Court should permanently enjoin Maaherra by entering an Order that Kristen Maaherra and those in active concert or participation with her are enjoined from:
(1) Infringing plaintiff's copyright in The Urantia Book in any manner, including the creation or distribution of copies of electronic databases or computer disks, or compact discs containing the text of The Urantia Book;
(2) Encouraging others to infringe the copyright in The Urantia Book; and
(3) Assisting, aiding, or abetting any person or business entity engaging in any of the activities prohibited in subparagraphs (1) - (2) above.
III. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Foundation asks the Court to grant its motion for a permanent injunction.
DATED: June 5, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven G. Hill
Gordon Dean Booth, Jr.
SCHREEDER, WHEELER & FLINT, LLP
1600 Candler Building
127 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1845
(404) 681-3450Copy of Maaherra Newsletter Filed as Exhibit with the Foundation's Motion for a Permanent
Injunction:"Lies Become Law"
Reaction to Judge Schroeder's Order
from Kristen Maaherra
July 4, 1997I have based my life on the Urantia Papers being exactly what they claim to
be: a revelation from God -- a gift from God to everyone on this planet --
authored, indited, written, composed, compiled, arranged, created,
transcribed, translated, collected, assembled, delivered, transmitted,
selected, coordinated, chosen, organized, sponsored, dictated, unified, made
meaningful, presented, authorized, mandated, assigned, revealed, portrayed,
depicted, commissioned, narrated, requested by, formulated, presented by
authority of the Ancients of Days, and materialized by superhumans.Judge Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Urantia
Papers were "created" -- "transcribed, compiled, and collected" -- by the
contact commission; and, therefore, the Foundation gets to copyright them.This is in the record. And the Urantia Foundation is standing behind it:
they're already trying to get injunctions in the Colorado case using Judge
Schroeder's ruling. The default is official. Patti Mundelius is going on
record that her relatives are liars, and that the Urantia Book is a fraud.[Text box: "Even as dusk turns to darkness, lies turn to law . . ."]
I also believe that -- if they were seeking to make the truth about the
revelation a matter of public record -- the Foundation would be first in
line to object to the "facts" Schroeder invents in her Order."Both Parties Believe"
What gets to me personally is that just because Judge Schroeder doesn't
believe the Urantia Papers are a divine revelation, she attributes those
same beliefs to me and makes them a matter of public record.Statements that Schroeder characterizes as "undisputed facts" that "both
sides believe" are totally incorrect. Over and over again in her Opinion
she says, "both parties believe." That her Opinion is in the public record
as LAW -- against all the evidence -- affidavits, briefs, documents and
testimony I have spent the last 6 years bringing forth -- I find an affront,
a slap in the face, a travesty of justice, and an abridgment of my rights to
my beliefs. I am indignant, outraged, offended, provoked, and righteously
angry that she attributes "beliefs" to me as "facts" that simply are not
supported in the record. I strongly object to being characterized in this
manner.For over 40 years Urantia Foundation has marketed the Urantia Papers as
divine revelation -- unchanged in any particular from the way it was
materialized by the superhuman authors. The Foundation has claimed for over
40 years that the most accurate information about the origin of the book is
given in the Urantia Papers by the revelators themselves.According to the Urantia Papers, the actual composition of the Urantia
Papers was assigned to three special commissions of universe personalities,
all superhuman:Part I was formulated by a high commission of twenty-four Orvonton
(superuniverse) administrators headed by a Divine Counselor and was
presented in 1934.Parts II and III were authorized by a Nebadon (local universe) commission of
twelve, acting under the direction of Mantutia Melchizedek and were indited
in 1934 and 1935.Part IV was sponsored by a commission of twelve Urantia midwayers acting
under the supervision of a Melchizedek revelatory director.In over 2000 pages of Urantia Papers, the revelators never mention questions
asked by humans; the revelators never mention the forum; the revelators
never mention the contact commission; and the revelators never mention the
Foundation or the Declaration of Trust.Of the human contact personality, the Papers (at page 1208) are clear that
Doc's patient didn't communicate the teachings, it was his Thought Adjuster
who was used: "The Adjuster ... through whom this communication is being
made..."Millstone Time
The most harmful part of Schroeder's Order is the damage it can do to
fledgling faith. If one believes that humans "fiddled" with the revelation,
one loses the leverage provided by the superhumans to change our thinking.
To condone, accept, approve, endorse, excuse, ignore, promote, sanction,
countenance or authorize Schroeder's position is to put a millstone around
the neck of potential believers.[Text box: "The false shepherds have let slip the wolves of law among the
Master's flock. . ."]Part of the basis for the credibility of the Urantia Papers is that the
contact commission were honorable folks, and the contact commission has
testified over and over that they didn't change a word, that they printed
the Papers just as they received them from the revelators. Every bit of
evidence we have so painfully gleaned over the last 6 years from the
Foundation and from members of the contact commission contradicts the
"facts" on which Schroeder bases her Opinion.Schroeder's assumption -- her whole premise -- seems to be that some patient
of Doc Sadler's "channeled" a bunch of teachings and then the Sadlers
edited, arranged, and compiled these transcripts into the Urantia Papers.
Schroeder's "facts" are in direct contradiction to every bit of testimony or
evidence we have from the Papers, from members of the contact commission,
and from early trustees.Schroeder's Order
Schroeder's first sentence in her Order is: "This is a copyright dispute
between parties who believe the copyrighted work, the Urantia Book, was
authored by celestial beings and transcribed, compiled and collected by mere
mortals."Emma Christensen, a member of the contact commission, testified in 1975:
"The Urantia Book was published precisely as it was given to the people of
this planet. Not a word has been added or deleted."I find Judge Schroeder's sarcasm about "mere mortals" offensive and
unprofessional. Judge Urbom ruled against me in 5 or so of the Summary
Judgments filed by the Foundation -- but I always felt Urbom was respectful
of religious beliefs. I also felt Urbom actually read the briefs from both
sides."Mere Mortals"
True, we are animal-origin mortals, but we aren't "mere mortals." Thanks to
the Urantia Papers, we know that we're potential finaliters."To the Adjuster-fused mortal the career of universal service is wide open.
What dignity of destiny and glory of attainment await every one of you! Do
you fully appreciate what has been done for you? Do you comprehend the
grandeur of the heights of eternal achievement which are spread out before
you? -- even you who now trudge on in the lowly path of life through your
so-called `vale of tears'?" (Urantia Papers 449).Schroeder's Opinion: "For copyright purposes, however, a work is
copyrightable if copyrightability is claimed by the first human beings who
compiled, selected, coordinated, and arranged the Urantia teachings, `in
such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work
of authorship.'" (Discussion, [2]).A History the Foundation claims was written by Doc Sadler, tells a
completely different story about the role of the contact commission:"The Papers were published just as we received them. The contact
commissioners had no editorial authority. Our job was limited to `spelling,
capitalization, and punctuation.'" (History, 000314, 1).Schroeder's Opinion: "Yet Feist also recognized that a compilation of facts
may possess the requisite originality when the author chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that
readers may use them effectively." (Discussion, [2.1])I believe this sentence describes what the revelators did, not the contact
commission. The Papers tell us that humans tend to want to go from easy to
difficult, but (as Jim Mills put it):"The authors have placed the sequence of studies in their present
arrangement for their own good reasons and while it is tempting to skip
around, much better results are obtained by slow steady reading."Schroeder's Opinion: "We hold that the human selection and arrangement of
the revelations in this case could not have been so `mechanical or routine
as to require no creativity whatsoever.'"There was no "human selection and arrangement!" Again, Emma Christensen
testifies:
"I can categorically assure you that no humans decided the content of the
Urantia Book. The Book is as the revelators gave it to us."[Text box: "How many motes does it take to make a beam?"]
Schroeder's Opinion: "Thus, notwithstanding the Urantia Book's claimed
non-human origin, the Papers in the form in which they were originally
organized and compiled by the members of the Contact Commission were at
least partially the product of human creativity." The Papers thus did not
belong to that `narrow category of works in which the creative spark is
utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent.'" (Discussion,
[5]).The Papers were NOT "organized and compiled" by the contact commission. The
revelators were so precise in their instructions (even to telling the
contact commission when they had permission to print the Papers) that it
might be more accurate to say that "the creative spark is utterly lacking or
so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent" in this case. As Emma
Christensen puts it:"The Urantia Book was published just as we received it in English. There was
no editing. Our only jurisdiction had to do with typing, proof-reading and
publication."Schroeder's Opinion: "The Papers were therefore protected by common law
copyright from the moment they were created by the members of the Contact
Commission until publication of the Book." (Ownership of the Copyright at
the Time of Original Publication, [6]).To me, this is one of Schroeder's most offensive sentences! (Under oath,
the Foundation was not even sure who the members of the contact commission
were!) The Papers were NOT "created" by members of the contact commission![Text box: "It's a strain to swallow Schroeder's camel."]
Again, from Emma Christensen:
"The Urantia Book has not gone through any alterations. It was received in
all essential respects just as you now find it, and was written in the
English language."Schroeder's Opinion: "These spiritual entities are thought to have
delivered the teachings, that were eventually assembled in the Book,
`through' a patient of a Chicago psychiatrist, Dr. Sadler." (Background, 1,
last).In spite of evidence in the record (and on page 1208 of the Papers) to the
contrary, Schroeder writes as if the Urantia Papers were "channeled."Doc Sadler wrote, after listing a whole page of various "Psychic Phenomena:
"The technique of the reception of the Urantia Book in English in no way
parallels or impinges upon any of the above phenomena of the marginal
consciousness. (History).Schroeder's Opinion: "The parties also agree that to understand these
divine messages better and to share them with the rest of the world, Dr.
Sadler formed a group of five or six followers, called the Contact
Commission." (Background, 2).However, Doc Sadler claimed the revelators selected the contact
commissioners, and the revelators initiated the presentation of the Urantia
Papers. (History, 000293).Copyright "Interest"
Schroeder's Opinion: "In fact, the mere possession of the printing plates
by the Foundation, the purported assignee, may have been sufficient to
establish an assignment as against a third party, such as Maaherra, who does
not claim any superior copyright interest." (Ownership of the Copyright at
the Time of Original Publication, [7.2].)For Schroeder to say I -- and with me the thousands of religionists who also
want the Urantia Papers in public domain -- have no "superior copyright
interest" is another enormous slap in the face to religionists. There are
thousands of people who have more interest in having the Papers in the
public domain than the Foundation has in retaining a copyright. For
religionists, giving away the Urantia Papers is evangelizing the real
religion of Jesus. "Go into all the world" is not idle talk for me and for
many others.Congress wrote copyright law to serve the public interest -- the best
interest of the most people. For example, when Zapruder tried to copyright
his film of Kennedy's assassination, the court ruled that the public was
best served by having the film in public domain.For Judge Schroeder to give a copyright to the Foundation, she is ruling
that the public is best served by 5 people who refused to sell Urantia
Books to many of us. Hello?[Text box: "The Widow's Mites: She mite be enjoined; she mite pay damages;
they mite not sell books to her. . ."]Maybe Schroeder's personal feelings about anyone (such as myself) who would
base their life on a belief in the supernal teachings of the Urantia Papers
is not deserving of the respect accorded more "normal" religions in America
-- like I'm one short step from drinking kool-aid at the request of a space
alien -- but I find her sarcasm in a legal ruling (for example, see the
first sentence, "mere mortals," in her Order) most unprofessional.Judge Schroeder has reduced the Urantia Papers to a farce, a fraud practiced
upon the public by the Sadler family. Schroeder has totally humanized the
authorship of the revelation. I believe the contact commissioners and the
early trustees would be appalled at seeing their life's work go down the
credibility drain like this. They worked so hard to bring the revelation to
the world, "unchanged by any human ideas or doctrines." (James C. Mills
wrote that in 1973).
And this lawsuit. What was the point in collecting evidence for years, when
Judge Schroeder obviously doesn't even read it? Her assumptions about what
"both sides believe" totally fly in the face of all the facts:"The Urantia Book was published just as it was received in English. There
was no editing. The only function of the Foundation had to with typing,
proofreading, and publication." (William Hales, first President of
Foundation, dep., 19-20)."No humans decided the content of The Urantia Book." (William Hales dep.,
22:20)."The book is unchanged from the way the revelators provided it." (William
Hales dep., 23:7)."No human ever edited this material." (Thomas Kendall, trustee).
"No human mentality was engaged in its original compilation which has been
reproduced exactly as it was transmitted." (James Mills, trustee)."No human beings decided the content of the Urantia Book. The book is as the
revelators gave it to us." (Meredith Sprunger).In oral argument, the Foundation's position in the Appeal Hearing was that
the contact commission (composed exclusively of Foundation President Patti
Sadler Mundelius' relatives -- Doc & Lena, Bill, Christy, and the Kelloggs)
are the legal authors of the Urantia Book because they conceived the idea
for the Urantia Book and then hired some superhumans to answer their
questions. And don't forget, Booth told the Judges, the Foundation still
resides in the family home at 533 Diversey, and Auntie Helen still lives
there since the death of Auntie Christy. It's obvious who should own the
copyright -- it's the family business.Judge Schroeder compares the Urantia Papers to taking names and addresses
("facts") and creating a telephone book with your own (copyrightable)
selection and arrangement.The public domain part, says Schroeder, is the "facts," the revelations
themselves.Judge Schroeder is aware that the Foundation has claimed -- in various
courts, under penalty of perjury -- not only that the patient of Doc
Sadler's wrote the Urantia Papers, but that the Urantia Papers were authored
by Bill Sadler, by the forum, by the contact commission, by the Foundation,
and that the Urantia Papers are a "work for hire" by the contact commission.In other words, the Foundation has told the Courts in almost every
conceivable way that the Urantia Papers are NOT what they claim to be.It's ironic that even the litigious Foundation hasn't ever asked to win
copyright on the basis Schroeder gave them -- on the basis of the Papers
being a collective work.In fact, Foundation lawyer, Lloyd C. Root, filed a sworn Affidavit with the
Copyright Office, February 11, 1980: "The Urantia Book is not a collective
work."
In her ruling, Judge Schroeder is merely saying to the Foundation, "You're
saying there has to be human authorship. OK, OK, I believe you."Schroeder has left it up to some other Judge to tell us exactly what her
Order means to Urantians.Can we scramble the order of the Papers (create a different arrangement and
compilation) and print them that way?Is the FolioViews Index copyrightable? Eric and I took the revelations
(which Schroeder says are public domain "facts") and renumbered each
paragraph into a searchable computer infobase.Forum members have testified that the Jesus Papers arrived in a bundle, all
at once. Can we reprint them just as the revelators gave them? Or do we
have to believe (Judge Schroeder's Opinion is Law) that they were rearranged
by humans, and therefore "copyrightable" as they appear in the Urantia Book?The quote, "The first group of Papers numbered 57," from the History, (page
000308) asks the same question.What exactly crosses the line into "infringement"? How many trustees does
it take to screw up a revelation?[Text box: "Forbid them all, let God sort 'em out."]
Joe Lewis has filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Appeal Court in an
attempt to get the Court to notice that it shouldn't be granting a Summary
Judgment to the Foundation when there are facts in dispute.Thank you again, each of you, who have been putting time, energy, money, and
prayers into this lawsuit.Regardless of the final outcome, important facts are on the record which
were difficult to obtain. These facts are there for anyone to make up their
own minds about. In all the years of careful scrutiny -- even with Judge
Schroeder's ruling -- it is clear that our revelation is exactly what it
says it is.
Much love, and God bless you,
Kristen Maaherra
152 California Gulch
Jamestown, CO 80455P.S. Donations are still gratefully accepted. Joe Lewis can't work without
getting paid much longer; and Eric still doesn't even have a lawyer. (In
writing legal briefs, Eric feels like he's been asked to do brain surgery
without any training -- a good analogy, don't you think?)PS. Judge Wiley Y. Daniel has set a hearing on the pending motions in the
Colorado (copyright and trademark) case Urantia Foundation v. Eric
Schaveland and Maaherra, Civil Action # 96-D- 2004, at 3:30 pm, Friday, July
25, 1997, at the US District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver."Unless the Foundation conducts itself with wisdom it may breed dissension
between itself and the Brotherhood. In the opinion of the writer, there is
no place in URANTIA Foundation for naivete or any exhibition of
proprietary feeling toward the Urantia Papers."
William S. Sadler, Jr., April, 1958Excerpts from First Maaherra Deposition filed with the Foundation's Motion for Permanent
Injunction:IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Civ-91-0325-PHX-WKU (SMM)URANTIA FOUNDATION,
a non-profit foundation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kristen Maaherra, Defendant.NOTICE OF FILING OF EXCERPTS FROM
THE FIRST MAAHERRA DEPOSITION
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTIONDATED: June 5, 1998
COMES NOW Plaintiff URANTIA Foundation and files the following Excerpts from
Kristen Maaherra's First Deposition in support of Plaintiff s Motion for Permanent Injunction:1 . First Deposition of Kristen Maaherra, pp. 13-15.
DEPOSITION OF KRISTEN MAAHERRA
Phoenix, Arizona
March 10, 1991
12:00 o'clock p.m.
REPORTED BY: Kunz Reporting ServicesPage 13:
1 Q. That FEF wanted to distribute and market
2 the book more aggressively, more widely?
3 A. Yes. See, I lived in Boulder, Colorado,
4 for a couple of years, the boldest, most aggressive place
5 for Urantia Book distribution. That's where Jesusonian is
6 located --
7 Q. Yeah, that's what I understand.
8 A. -- and the school.
9 Q. I have some questions about that, because
10 from your letter I am not sure I understand the school.
11 But before we get to that, from your letter I also
12 understood, though, that your view, although you may not
13 want to get involved in the controversy between the
14 Foundation and the Brotherhood, but your view of the
15 distribution of the book coincided more with FEF's than
16 the Foundation's?
17 A. I don't know exactly what either view is,
18 to tell you the truth. My own personal view is that the
19 book should be on bookshelves in bookstores so that people
20 browsing don't have to ask for it, so that people
21 browsing, can say, hey, hey, that's the one. And if
22 there's not that opportunity, then it's wrong.
23 Q. But you are critical of the Foundation
24 terminating the use of distributors?
25 A. By delisting it with the distributors,Page 14:
1 it's not getting on the bookshelves.
2 Q. So it's not being spread as widely as you
3 would like?
4 A. The spreading doesn't matter so much as
5 the availability. If it's just sitting there on the book-
6 shelf so that somebody browsing has that opportunity to
7 connect with it, that's all I ask for. You know, I don't
8 go door to door and be aggressive in that way.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. In fact, all my study aids are for
11 readers. I don't even deal with non-readers. You see
12 what I mean?
13 Q. I might. First of all, when you say your
14 study aids, what are you referring to?
15 A. The long Concordance, the long Concordance
16 printout, the Electronic Infobase, the short Index with
17 just page numbers, the "Quotes that aren't in the Bible." I
18 call that one of my study aids, because that's been one of
19 my pet projects. I have been trying to compile that for
20 years. The same with the "Changes Between Printings," the
21 same with the "Readers Still Proofing" file. We have been
22 trying to put that together for years. Same with the
23 Sadler stuff and transcribing Sadler talks for years.
24 Q. I think I got most of that, but let me
25 check.Page 15:
1 A. I made an infobase out of the Sadler
2 talks.
3 Q. In your letter, you mention that you had
4 -- turn to page eight, the bottom paragraph with the
5 number 72 next to it. It states, "Concerning myself, I
6 have helped create, compile, distribute and finance many
7 study aids for the Urantia Book," first sentence.
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. Are there any study aids other than the
10 ones you just named which you are referring to there?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Okay. I noticed you also say, "I have sat
13 at booths displaying the Urantia book." What are those,
14 ma'am?
15 A. In Boulder they'll have an Urantia Book
16 booth in the mall and different people man the booth, or
17 woman the booth as the case might be, and people just come
18 along and ask questions or whatever.
19 Q. So it's just a regular commercial mall?
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. There's a booth set up?
22 A. Sometimes in fairs.
23 Q. Book fairs?
24 A. No, I haven't been to a book fair. Like
25 fair fairs.
Excerpts from Second Maaherra Deposition filed with the Foundation's Motion for Permanent
Injunction:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CIV 91-0325 PHX WKUURANTIA FOUNDATION
Plaintiff,
V.
KRISTEN MAAHERRA
Defendant.Washington, D.C.
Monday, December 12, 1994Deposition of KRISTEN MAAHERRA,
Defendant herein, called for examination by counsel
for Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter,
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by
BLANCHE GEWIRTZ, BA, CSR, RPR, a Notary Public in
and for the District of Columbia, taken at the
offices of Cleary & Komen, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
S.E., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20003, at 12:30
p.m., Monday, December 12, 1994, and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by
BLANCHE GEWIRTZ, BA, CSR, RPR, and transcribed
under her direction.ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1111 14th ST., N.W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D.C., 20005Page 35:
1 were authorized by personalities with the authority
2 to do so.
3 A. I'm glad you out the "alleged" in there
4 since all I try to do is God's will.
5 Q. But I take it from your defense that you
6 claim that you were authorized to put the -- your
7 answer book on diskette and to create your index
8 and then to distribute the text of the Urantia Book
9 and the index.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And we went over the names,
12 specific names, that you list in your defense. We
13 listed these earlier. And in your defense you say
14 it includes those individuals --
15 A. When I say I was authorized, I am talking
16 about being authorized by God.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. When you are talking about these Forum
19 members, we are referring to the fact that the
20 Urantia Foundation said in their admissions answers
21 that the Forum participated in the authorship.
22 Q. That is how we got off on the book --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, it's coming back to me.
25 A. See, I don't believe that.
Page 36:
1.Q. Okay.
2 A. I don't believe -- and I think the Forum
3 does not believe that. I think any Forum member
4 who has heard that the Foundation has pulled them
5 in that way was totally indignant, or would be
6 totally indignant if they were alive.
7 Q. No, we won't get back into that and,
8 obviously, I think there may be some
9 misunderstanding. We want to talk about this
10 defense but there may be some miscommunication that
11 is giving rise to that whole -- misunderstanding.
12 But what I'm asking, okay, now, you said
13 a moment ago, and maybe that is the general
14 question: What does this defense mean? I think
15 you may have already answered that. To you it
16 means you were authorized by God to do what you
17 did.
18 A. And by the people who were listed there,
19 since the Foundation seems to think that they
20 helped author the Urantia Papers.
21 Q. Did you ever seek permission from the
22 Foundation to create your electronic version of the
23 book --
24 A. No.
25 Q. -- your- study aid?Page 37:
I A. No, never.
2 Q. Why?
3 A. Because the Urantia Papers are a gift
4 from God to every single child on the planet. And
5 -- I wanted to help as -- be useful an this planet,
6 as much as I can, and I truly feel that God wanted
7 me to do an index. And I have never paid any
8 attention to the social organization, anyway. It
9 is kind of a dysfunctional family.
10 Q. In your answer to the Foundation's
11 Complaint, you admitted that you knew, at the time
12 you created your electronic version of the book,
13 that the Foundation helped copyright the Urantia
14 Book, correct?
15 A. Helped with what?
16 Q. The Urantia Book.
17 A. "Helped" the copyright?
18 Q. Held the copyright.
19 A. Oh.
20 Q. I've got to watch my enunciation. "Held"
21 the copyright or owned the copyright to the Urantia
22 Book.
23 A. There are over 700 copyrights on Bibles
24 right now, too.
25 Q. Okay. I know in your answer you saidPage 38:
1 that -- I mean you characterized it differently and
2 you said the Urantia Foundation is "the owner of
3 record of," and then you listed the actual
4 copyright registration numbers. But you knew the
S Urantia Foundation held those, or owned those
6 copyright registrations, before you created your
7 electronic version of the book, correct?
8 A. I have always assumed that the
9 Foundation had a valid copyright. It was only when
10 this court case began that I realized they did not.
11 Q. Okay. So, again, we are missing -- that
12 is not what I asked. I don't -- I mean, it is
13 clear in the lawsuit you contend the copyright is
14 not valid. That is why we're sitting here today.
15 A. (Witness nods head).
16 Q. All I'm asking is -- we're talking about
17 whether you sought permission from the Foundation
18 before you created your electronic version and
19 index to the Urantia Book.
20 A. I already answered that.
21 Q. Right. You answered that question. Then
22 my next questions was: At the time you -- I'm
23 trying to think of a shorthand way to describe what
24 you did, but at the time you created the electronic
25 version, and I'm just referring to everything youPage 39:
1 did, in that statement, trying to shorten it up,
2 when you did it, you knew the Foundation held the
3 copyright to the Urantia Book?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you testified a moment ago that you
6 never sought permission from the Foundation to
7 create -- your, your electronic version and your
8 index.
9 A. Correct. The Foundation was well-known
10 to not give permission to do much of anything.
11 Q. Again, you are not -- I'm asking --
12 MR. LEWIS: I remind you to listen
13 carefully to the questions and answer the
14 question.
15 THE WITNESS: No, I never sought
16 permission. Okay.
17 BY MR. WHARTON:
18 Q. Did you seek permission from anyone
19 before you created your electronic book?
20 A. I sought permission from God. I also
21 talked a lot to Jesus and the Divine Minister.
22 Q. For instance, did you seek permission
23 from any of the six individuals you identify in
24 Paragraph 10?
25 A. Absolutely not. I think the FoundationPage 41:
1 idea came up. Yes. Because of what the Foundation
2 was saving.
3 Q. So an authorization defense never -- you
4 never contemplated raising an authorization defense
5 until you received those written answers?
6 A. I was already --
7 MR. LEWIS: I would object to any
8 discussions she may have had with an attorney.
9 MR. WHARTON: No, I'm asking her
10 specifically --
11 MR. LEWIS: Okay.
12 BY MR. WHARTON:
13 Q. Go ahead.
14 A. I was already authorized by God. I
15 already had an authorization defense.
16 Q. When you use the term -- when you state
17 in your defense that were authorized by
18 personalities, I have asked this but I'm not sure
19 you answered the specific question, are you
20 referring -- I think you may have added more to
21 your answer in your last couple of answers, but are
22 you referring to any nonhuman beings?
23 A. I think when we first talked about it,
24 the first person I mentioned was God.
25 Q. Are you referring, I mean, when you useExcerpts from the Third Maaherra Deposition filed with the Foundation's Motion for Permanent
Injunction:URANTIA FOUNDATION,
A non-profit foundation,
Plaintiff, Civ-91-0325
PHX-WKU (SMM)
KRISTEN MAAHERRA,
Defendant.
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, November 13, 1997Deposition of KRISTEN MAAHERRA, a
Defendant herein, called for examination by
counsel for Plaintiff in the above-entitled
matter, pursuant to notice, the witness being
duly sworn by PAULA L. GRIDER, a Notary Public in
and for the District of Columbia. taken at the
offices of Cleary, Komen & Lewis, L.L.P., 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C., at
10:30 a.m., Thursday, November 13, 1997, and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by
PAULA L. GRIDER, and transcribed under her
direction.ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1111 14th ST., N.W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D.C., 20005Page 7:
1 BY MR. HILL:
2 Q. And looking at this case, the Arizona
3 litigation is what I'm going to refer to this
4 particular case, you distributed, I think we have
5 established by now, that you distributed computer
6 diskettes that had, among other things on them,
7 the entire text of the Urantia Papers; is that
8 correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And when I say the Urantia Papers, just
11 so we are clear, you understand that I mean the
12 196 papers that are published in the Urantia
13 Book?
14 A. Plus the foreword.
15 Q. Plus the foreword. I don't consider
16 the foreword a Urantia paper, per se, but you do?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. So you understand that when I say the
19 Urantia Papers, I'm talking about the papers that
20 are in the Urantia Book; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How many of the free diskettes that
23 we've already discussed would you say you
24 distributed prior to the lawsuit being initiated
25 in 1991?Page 8:
1 A. I honestly don't know.
2 Q- Would you say it's over 100?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would you say it's over 250?
5 A. I just don't know.
6 Q. But you are pretty confident it's over
7 100 in any event?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is there anyone who would know, that
10 you think would know how many of the diskettes
11 were distributed?
12 A. No, I don't think so.
13 Q. Do you think you might have any written
14 notes anywhere that would answer that question?
15 MR. LEWIS: I'm going to point out here
16 that discovery deposition was taken of Ms. Maaherra
17 at the very infancy of this case at which time
18 she produced documents and a hard drive, some of
19 which were never returned to her and that,
20 therefore, the Urantia Foundation is the best
21 information as to that.
22 MR. HILL: I have at least some of
23 those letters. Our firm was not -- I think Craig
24 Fochler took that deposition in 1991 and I don't
25 know anything about the things that were supposedPage 9:
1 to be returned or weren't supposed to be
2 returned, but you may very well be right that we
3 may have the best information.
4 I still think I'm entitled to know --
5 I've read the deposition transcript. I know that
6 Mr. Fochler did not ask her whether or not she
7 had any written notes that she didn't bring with
8 her to that deposition that would confirm how
9 many diskettes were distributed, so I think I'm
10 entitled to know the answer to that question if
11 there is such documents.
12 BY MR. HILL:
13 Q. Do you know whether there are any such
14 documents?
15 A. I don't know other than that which we
16 have already discussed.
17 Q. I didn't think you did, but I wanted to
18 tie up any loose ends here.
19 Now, since the lawsuit began in 1991,
20 have you distributed any additional computer
21 diskettes that have the text of the Urantia
22 Papers on them?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How many have you distributed since the
25 lawsuit began?Page 30
1 want to do it?
2 A. I don't have as many dreams as I used
3 to.
4 Q. I assume that one of the things you
5 would like to do with the CD Rom is you would
6 like to assume distribution of it again?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. How many CD-ROMs do you have right now
9 that have all of the things that we've been
10 discussing digitized on it?
11 A. None.
12 Q. You don't have any?
13 A. I don't have any.
14 Q. You gave them all away at the summer
is 196 conference?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What kind of equipment is required to
18 digitize say a text of the Urantia Papers to a CD
19 Rom?
20 A. To make a CD?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. A CD maker.
23 Q_ what do you need once you have the CD
24 to digitize the information onto or do you do it
25 all at once? Do you make the CD at the same timePage 31:
1 you digitize the information? I've never made
2 one before.
3 A. There is CD making software that comes
4 with your CD.
5 Q. Do you own a CD maker?
6 A. Sure.
7 Q- When did you acquire a CD maker?
8 A. I guess right after, it was the summer
9 of when the final judgment --
10 Q. Summer of '95?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Do you have only one CD maker or do you
13 have more than one?
14 A. One.
is Q. Do you use that with a computer at the
16 same time?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is it an apparatus that you hook up --
19 is it hardware for your computer?
20 A. Yes.
2" Q. How many computers do you have right
22 now or I should say do you have in your household
23 with Eric?
24 A. You mean including Eric's, including my
25 son's?Page 32:
I Q. Yeah, in your household.
2 A. Six.
3 Q. And of those six, do any of them the
4 text of the Urantia Papers on the hard drive?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How many of the six?
7 A. One.
8 Q. Which one is that?
9 A. The laptop.
10 Q. What about diskettes that have the text
11 of the Urantia Book on it? Do you have diskettes
12 that have the whole or partial text of the
13 Urantia Book?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How many diskettes would you say you
16 have of that kind of text?
17 A. At least a couple sets.
18 Q. Is there anybody that you are aware of
19 that is holding additional computer diskettes
20 that has the text of the Urantia Book on it for
21 you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So the only text of the Urantia Book
24 that's on computer diskettes that you are aware
25 of and have a right to are the ones that are inPage 33:
1 your household; is that correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Do you recall your previous two
4 depositions in connection with this case?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. LEWIS: I guess does she recall
7 being there?
8 MR. HILL: I'm just asking if she
9 recalls the fact that she has been in two
10 depositions.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I remember.
12 BY MR. HILL:
13 Q. Do you recall much of what was in
14 either of your two prior depositions?
15 A. No specifics.
16 Q. Is there anything that you are aware of
17 that you testified in either of your previous
18 depositions that you think you've changed your
19 mind or the information that you've provided was
20 incorrect?
21 A. I don't recall anything.
22 Q. Are there any views that you may have
23 had in '91 or' 94 that you are aware of that have
24 changed as you sit here today?
25 MR. LEWIS: I object to the breadth ofPage 34:
1 that question.
2 MR. HILL: Well, I'm talking about
3 views relating to specifically whether or not the
4 distribution of the Urantia Book needs to occur
5 at a faster pace, whether or not enough Urantia
6 Books exist on book shelves right now for those
7 who may want to purchase them. Views that are
8 really relevant to this case.
9 THE WITNESS: Not just have I grown.
10 MR. HILL: Right.
11 THE WITNESS: I hope I've grown. I
12 still believe in evolutionary growth as described
13 in the Urantia Papers.
14 BY MR. HILL:
is Q. So my question, I don't want you to
16 feel like you have to reiterate all of those
17 views because obviously you have expressed them
18 before and we don't need to take up time doing
19 that, but if there's anything that is important
20 in the way that your views shaped your actions
21 that are involved in this case, that are at issue
22 in this case, I would like to give you an
23 opportunity the fact that your views have
24 changed.
25 MR. LEWIS: I want to state anPage 35:
1 objection that she has already testified that she
2 doesn't remember the specifics of the
3 depositions. They were several years ago.
4 MR. HILL: I'm just asking to her
5 recollection.
6 BY MR. HILL:
7 Q. To your recollection, any?
8 A. I wouldn't want to stand up for
9 everything I've said in my life.
10 Q. None of us would. Well, you stated in
11 one of your previous depositions that you
12 believed that the Urantia Papers are a gift from
13 God to every child on this planet. Has that view
14 changed?
15 A. No, that's a view I hold very
16 strongly. That's a core belief.
17 Q. Right. And I assume that when you say
18 you believe the Urantia Papers are a gift from
19 God, you are talking, again, about the papers
20 that comprise the entire text of what is also
21 known as the Urantia Book?
22 A. Urantia Book has a table of
23 contents. I'm not talking about that.
24 Q. Right. But when you say the Urantia
25 Papers, you are talking about the foreword andPage 36:
1 the 196 papers specifically?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And the foreword and 196 papers are in
4 the Urantia Book with the additional proviso that
5 there is a table of contents?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. You made some statements in your
8 previous depositions regarding the fact that you
9 thought that God was authorizing your actions
10 with respect, to copying and disseminating the
11 computer diskettes that had the text of the
12 Urantia Papers on it. Do you recall that?
13 A. I don't recall those specific
14 statements, but I'll go along with you.
15 Q. Humor my assumption. Okay. What I was
&nb