Update from Kristen, November, 1998
Urantia Foundation v. Kristen Maaherra
November, 1998
Dear Friends,
Thank you once again for your prayers and support, both material and spiritual.
To review:
You might remember, the Foundation filed a motion asking the court to place me under a permanent injunction -- they asked the court to order me not to use even one word of the text of the Urantia Papers.
To catch you up to date:
Judge Urbom wants a hearing on this injunction motion. He ordered both sides to file with him a list of all exhibits and witnesses we plan to use at the hearing. (This list is called the Joint Pre-Trial Order).
Judge Urbom has set two possible dates for the hearing on the Foundation's Motion for Permanent Injunction: December 28-31, 1998, and January 5-8, 1999, in Phoenix, Arizona.
Enclosures:
1. While pulling together a witness list for this upcoming hearing, I asked Dr. Sprunger if he would be a witness. In this connection, he sent me the enclosed Affidavit, which I thought you would find interesting.
2. "Defendant's Brief Outline of Her Case" is part of the Joint Pre-Trial Order which was filed with the Court last Friday, October 30,1998.
3. While putting together a documents list for the Joint Pre-Trial Order, I realized that I have Foundation documents - produced by the Foundation in the course of this lawsuit - that "prove" just about anything. Those many contradictions are the subject of the "Spectrum" enclosure.
4. "Cry Havoc! - and Let Slip the Dogs of Law," is Eric's reaction to the way the Foundation has argued in court.
How the Foundation Obtained an Injunction Against Me the First Time
The Foundation looked the Judge right in the eye and claimed, "It's not a religious book," and, "We're not a religious organization."
The Foundation told the Judge that I was only "saying" it's my religion in an attempt to avoid the consequences of commercial infringement.
They told the Judge, "Bill Sadler, Jr. wrote, authored, however you want to look at it, parts of the Urantia Book, and that's our author, and it was clearly a work for hire."
It was on the strength of these bald-faced lies that the Judge granted the Foundation a preliminary injunction against my giving away an index of the Urantia Papers over 7 years ago.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Most Urantians are aware that the Foundation was granted a tax-exempt status because they are organized "exclusively for religious purposes."
Most Urantians have received fund-raising letters from the Foundation soliciting tithes and donations so that the Urantia Papers can be perpetually printed and have wide distribution.
Doubleday and Macmillan are commercial publishers. Doubleday and Macmillan don't solicit donations and tithes from the public in order to print books. Doubleday and Macmillan don't enjoy a tax-exempt status as non-profit publishers.
If someone owns a copyright on a book, copyright law doesn't care if the copyright holder refuses to keep the book in print. Copyrighted books go out of print all the time. There is no law saying that the copyright holder has to keep a book in print.
However, if a non-profit organization, such as the Foundation, solicits donations and tithes to keep a book in print, and then refuses to sell the book to individuals and groups who do not believe in its copyright, trademark, and "slow growth" policies, or refuses to keep the text of our religion available, one would hope that there is some law somewhere more in the public interest that would apply.
Public Interest
It's not that no one else cares to publish the Urantia Papers. During the short time the Papers were in public domain, 2 other groups published the Papers. Many other individuals and groups currently have the Papers available for download on the Internet.
The Foundation claims to the court that they are nothing but a commercial publisher of a book they authored and hold the copyright on. They complain that I've "ruined" their commercial sales by giving away an index. And yet they're a non-profit religious group under the United States tax laws.
"Bearing False Witness" v. "Legalese"
In law, you can argue all these things at the same time: "(1) She wasn't raped; in fact, there was no intercourse; (2) I didn't rape her; (3) Yes, I had intercourse with her, but it was consensual."
Believers in Jesus are called upon to tell the truth; we're expected to tell the truth when we're brought up before the Judges of the people. Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven are actually commanded to tell the truth.
And I think it was that level of religious ethics we expected from the Foundation.
Instead, we got "legalese." We got people who say, "We don't have to tell the truth, we can make any argument. It's not a question of lying - it's just another argument, it's just spin. Clinton is a symptom of the times. There's no such thing as truth in law."
In this lawsuit, we are trying to get at the truth of a Foundation who has spent the 7+ years of this lawsuit contradicting itself about every important subject. They have acted as if truth itself does not exist, as if truth is only an "argument" in a lawsuit to win a particular skirmish. When a believer confronts the Foundation with any of this "false witness," they pat the believer on the head and claim they were only speaking "legalese," a language we rank and file believers can't understand (and shouldn't bother our lame little brains about).
So what if Clinton or the Foundation don't want to follow the rules of Dalamatia - why should it matter? They have free will. I think we're shocked, stunned, surprised, appalled, astonished, dismayed, floored, horrified, incredulous, jolted, insulted, offended, and outraged simply because we expected more out of the Foundation if they are to be caretakers and publishers of the fifth epochal revelation.
Mo Siegel wrote: "What prevents Urantia Foundation from precisely speaking the truth about the book's unseen authors? . . .don't the trustees see that their tactics will discredit, then annihilate the very object they covet for their sole possession?"
Reviewing Documents
For the last month or so, I've been going over documents from the last 7 years of this lawsuit in an attempt to prepare myself for the upcoming hearing.
As I've been reviewing, I've once again been struck with how -- during the course of the last 7 years of this lawsuit -- plaintiff Foundation has been "all over the map" with contradictory legal statements concerning authorship, origin, religion, the circles, "personal use" of the circles, and use of the words "Urantia" and "Urantian."
I have here before me a large file box of written documentation of each of these contradictions. Obviously, I can't just "pick and choose" the statements made by the Foundation that support what I believe is true: that the Urantia Papers have superhuman authorship, with no human authorship-- that the "revelation" part of The Urantia Book is the Foreword and Papers 1 through 196.
I basically must "throw out" as useless any statements the Foundation has made where I can document the Foundation claiming the exact opposite. When we came across a lie in C. Kendall's deposition testimony, we just wasted our money - none of her testimony was usable.
Because of the contradictions, "false witness," and outright lies of the Foundation, I have concluded that I cannot use any of the material from the Foundation to "prove" anything about the revelation. The Foundation has done everything they can to obfuscate the truth about the Urantia Papers.
(Obfuscate: to cloud over; to make dark or unclear; to muddle, confuse, bewilder, blur, complicate, distort, and obscure.)
Therefore, I concluded, I will just go back to statements made by the early leaders of the Urantia community, before any lawsuits. I have stacks of wonderful letters these folks wrote about the origin and authorship of the Papers, about religion, about the circles, about the words Urantia and Urantian.
However, before long, I discovered I also have documentation of "false witness" by early leaders. (With the exception of Bill Hales).
Definition of a Cult
And that, according to experts who study cults, is a core definition of a cult: the willingness to lie for a (perceived) greater good. "The end justifies the means," kind of thinking.
This Urantia cult has an "unassailable," closed circuit "inner bubble" of secret messages that drive the cult leaders to lie about authorship and origin of the Papers, to lie about the circles, to lie about religion, to lie about the words Urantia and Urantian -- and all this behavior is done in the name of "protecting" the revelation, the circles, or the name Urantia.
That the "inner bubble" leaders see the word "protect" (a word they claim was given in instructions from the revelators) as synonymous with "copyright" and "trademark" is a leap of logic that the rank and file of us are told not to question. But most normal people do question the wisdom of breaking the rules of Dalamatia, the Ten Commandments, or forsaking the Spirit of Truth.
If the revelators' message was to "protect" the text, "copyright" is just as reasonable an interpretation as if the trustees decided they had to stand in front of the manuscript with a rifle and shoot anyone who tried to read the revelation.
If the revelators' message was actually to obtain an "international copyright" on the text, the copyright should have been obtained in England - where it is legal to copyright works by superhuman authors. I feel sure the revelators would not ask humans to lie.
I could understand if the word "protect" were interpreted "keep the text inviolate," (or) "print millions of inviolate copies of the revelation."
I believe it is this rigid "copyright" interpretation of the "protect" message that has led to the Foundation's lies concerning authorship. Once the Foundation began to protect the copyright instead of the text, they began to "go to law." And they began to swear in court the Urantia Papers have human authorship - because, unlike England, under United States law, works by superhumans are not copyrightable.
Mo Siegel (in 1991, before he became a trustee) put it well: "As devoted believers in the revelation, we can only pray the Trustees have been making unintentional errors answering the authorship question. Nothing could destroy the revelation's long-term success quicker than the original publisher giving sworn court testimony that The Urantia Book was authored by human sources. Imagine how discredited the revelation would appear when church leaders gave their congregations copies of Urantia Foundation's disclosures on authorship."
"Going to Law"
Mo told me on the phone, "This lawsuit never should have happened." But he's in charge of "legal" at the Foundation--and "legal" is asking that I be enjoined from using even one of the revelator's marvelous words. Why? It appears they don't mind sacrificing believers now and then for what they perceive to be a "greater good"--a tighter grip on their very thin copyright. A copyright they have only because they are willing to lie for it.
They weave sophistries and obfuscations around every subject. Their legal arguments have nothing to do with truth -- their arguments seem like mental gymnastics and makeshift proposals designed to get whatever it is they want in the moment -- whether it be a tax-exempt status from the IRS, a tithe from a religionist, or a copyright from a court.
The Papers Stand on their Own
The upside of all this -- perhaps even because of these very contradictions dished out by the Foundation--is that the Papers stand on their own. Each person must decide--without authentication from any human (including the contact commissioners) --if the Papers are what they say they are.
However spiritually uplifting this conclusion may be -- I still am facing this silly hearing. Plaintiff Foundation pretends to the court that they somehow created the revelation they crave to control -- and they ask the court to help them shut down anyone who doesn't buckle under and kiss their ring of authority.
Shadow Boxing
Plaintiff Foundation has become so unreal through their lying, that dealing with them feels like shadow boxing.
They say they're "different" now, but how different can they be? They lied to obtain a copyright, and -- as the copyright owner of the Urantia Papers -- nothing prevents them from continuing to refuse to publish an inviolate text (they have refused to print an inviolate text since 1955) or refusing to sell books again in the future.
The "facts" in a lawsuit -- such as this one -- are supposed to be little building blocks from which a picture of the truth can emerge. From this position of truth, a Judge can form an Opinion which is based on facts and carried out in justice and fairness.
Plaintiff Foundation would have the court believe that when I gave away study aids for my religion, I "ruined" their commercial sales -- kind of like they publish Tolkein, and I gave away an electronic text of Lord of the Rings, thus undercutting their book sales. Plaintiff Foundation would have the court believe that I only "say" it's my religion to avoid the consequences of commercial infringement.
On the other hand, plaintiff Foundation has also argued that I'm a bona fide religious fanatic who has no respect for their personal religious property and no respect for the law in general.
New Copyright Law
Congress just voted to extend copyright for another 20 years - which means the Foundation might try to control the revelation until 2050, not just 2030.
I believe, when all is said and done, that the Foundation's big mistake was its shift from protecting the text to protecting the copyright.
And that's the update. Thank you once again for your prayers, support, donations, letters, phone calls, FAXes, e-mails, and requests for copies of the CD!
The CD
Which reminds me: I've almost finished putting the actual Bible quotes in the margins (not just abbreviations of the chapter:verse of scripture), and the dictionary is shaping up. The next CD will have no socio-political stuff on it -- just straight study aids. Also the 185 MB of animal photos (you have the links to these already on this CD, but not the actual photos) are ready to include.
By the way, Parson's sells a great Bible dictionary-- Unger's Talking Bible Dictionary -- which you might want to add to your research tools.
Much love, and God bless you,
Kristen Maaherra
urantian@concentric.net
P.S. If you would like to read quotes from all the various documents mentioned in "Spectrum," I can e-mail them to you (it's about a 50 page file).