00817 { 9:55:58am} 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 18, 2001 13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEE R. WEST, SENIOR JUDGE PRESIDING 13 14 JURY TRIAL - VOLUME V 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 00818 { 9:55:58am} 01 INDEX OF VOLUME V 02 --------------------------------------------------------------- 03 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES (CONTINUED): 04 TONIA K. BANEY 05 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 853 05 REDIRECT (By Mr. Kertscher) ................... 869 06 RECROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ...................... 873 06 Witness Excused .................................... 875 07 07 BARBARA A. NEWSOM 08 08 DIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) .................. 875 09 Witness Excused .................................... 897 09 10 ANN GARNER 10 11 DIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) .................. 898 11 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 912 12 REDIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ................ 917 12 Witness Excused .................................... 919 13 13 BARBARA A. NEWSOM 14 14 DIRECT (Continued) (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ...... 923 15 CROSS (By Mr. Abowitz) ........................ 930 15 REDIRECT (By Mr. Schoenthaler) ................ 938 16 Witness Excused .................................... 939 16 17 DEFENDANTS REST ......................................... 940 17 18 PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL WITNESSES: 18 19 HARRY McMULLAN 19 20 DIRECT (By Mr. Abowitz) ....................... 941 20 CROSS (By Mr. Hill) ........................... 951 21 Witness Excused .................................... 956 22 DEFENDANTS' OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING BARBARA A. NEWSOM .. 962 23 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ...... 971 24 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ...... 983 25 ********** 00819 { 9:55:58am} 01 MORNING SESSION 02 MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001 03 --------------------------------------------------------------- 04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE JUDGE'S 05 CHAMBERS, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 06 THE COURT: Be seated. 07 Okay. We're getting close to some real serious 08 instructions conferences which I'm going to have to make some 09 decisions about what to instruct on. 10 The first thing I want you to do is explain to me exactly 11 what your theory of this case is, factually and legally, what 12 you're going to argue. Just outline the argument for the 13 record and the Court that you're going to make to that jury, 14 first on the donor issue. Summarize that, briefly, if you 15 will. 16 MR. PLOURDE: I'm sorry? On the -- 17 THE COURT: I mean on the author issue. 18 MR. PLOURDE: Author issue. Okay. The patient is 19 the author, Judge. 20 THE COURT: That's your position? 21 MR. PLOURDE: I'm not going to make the argument but 22 I suspect Murray will argue the patient is the author. 23 THE COURT: And your position is then ultimately if 24 the patient is the author -- and you're going to argue what, 25 Steve? Just stick to that, first. 00820 { 9:56:01am} 01 MR. HILL: I think what I'm going to tell the jury in 02 my closing is that our client believes that celestial authors 03 are the true personalities that account for the content of the 04 book but that we're not trying to push our religious beliefs 05 down anyone's throats and we don't much care about that part. 06 If eight people who have never read The Urantia Book before say 07 that that's unbelievable, -- 08 THE COURT: The thing I want to -- 09 MR. HILL: -- we'll go from whatever they decide. 10 THE COURT: The thing I want to pin down is whether 11 or not there's going to be any argument made by either side 12 that someone other than the patient, subject, whatever we call 13 him, or celestial beings were the authors. 14 MR. HILL: No, Judge. 15 MR. PLOURDE: No. 16 THE COURT: You want me to submit only the issue of 17 whether it was who the author was but in our form limit it then 18 to, "Was the patient/subject the author or were celestial 19 beings," yes or no. What about that, just yes or no? 20 MR. PLOURDE: That's the way it's drafted now, Judge, 21 and I think that probably leaves room for confusion because 22 there's been other stuff floating around. 23 THE COURT: What do you suggest? 24 MR. PLOURDE: I suggest that we say, "Was the patient 25 the author or was it celestial beings? Who do you find was the 00821 { 9:56:05am} 01 author?" 02 MR. HILL: Have a box -- 03 THE COURT: Can you all agree upon that? I don't 04 have any problem if you all agree upon it. 05 MR. HILL: I don't have any problem with that. 06 THE COURT: No one has ever made -- and I don't want 07 to create any problems between you -- but nobody has ever made 08 any argument that Dr. Sadler is the author? 09 MR. HILL: My client hasn't. 10 MR. ABOWITZ: Other than a guy who has critiqued the 11 book and said, "Something fishy is afoot," has suggested that's 12 what it is. 13 THE COURT: But nobody has ever argued that as a 14 legal position? 15 MR. ABOWITZ: Not that I know of. 16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No. 17 MR. PLOURDE: Frankly, it wouldn't make a difference. 18 THE COURT: Well, I think that's probably -- I mean, 19 that might be the outcome. 20 What I'm getting here is that nobody is going to complain 21 that the jury was instructed erroneously if it leaves it to 22 just these two -- that box and so forth; is that correct? 23 MR. PLOURDE: That's right. 24 MR. HILL: That's correct, Judge. 25 THE COURT: All right. Now then, let's say that the 00822 { 9:56:07am} 01 jury finds most probably, and I don't know that to be a fact, 02 but most probably I think you both agree they're most probably 03 going to find that the patient/subject is the author. What are 04 you going to argue from that? 05 MR. PLOURDE: Well, Judge, really, as I understand 06 it, as we move down the decision tree on that side, their 07 choices are -- 08 THE COURT: I want to know what your suggestions are 09 if that is the case. 10 MR. PLOURDE: Well, our suggestions are more to the 11 negative, that it's not a composite work. 12 THE COURT: I want you to tell me how you can win 13 this lawsuit if the author -- patient is determined to be the 14 author. 15 MR. PLOURDE: It's a unified literary work. In other 16 words, the patient put it together. It's all one work. It's 17 not bits and pieces that were put together in a composite. So, 18 that's issue number one on that side. And then issue number 19 two, I think, is whether it's a commissioned work, you know, a 20 species of work for hire. 21 THE COURT: And what's your position in regard to 22 that? 23 MR. PLOURDE: Our position is it's not a commissioned 24 work. That whatever else anybody might believe, The Contact 25 Commission -- I think that's who they say commissioned the 00823 { 9:56:09am} 01 work, was The Contact Commission. The Contact Commission 02 didn't control how this work came about. It wasn't done for 03 them. They received, they believe, directions on how to go 04 about doing this. You know, the answers that were given to the 05 questions from looking at their side of the case were answered 06 in the way that the author chose to answer it and they didn't 07 have any control over it. 08 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 09 MR. PLOURDE: I think that's -- I think it's a 10 simple -- 11 THE COURT: "If you find that, if you find the 12 facts" -- you're talking to the jury -- "if you find the facts 13 in accordance with us, you rule for us by ruling that it was" 14 not a copyright or was not transferred, which one or both? 15 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, it's not a composite work. It 16 was a unified literary work. Everybody, I think, agrees with 17 that. It's not a commissioned work. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Spell it out. If it's 19 neither of those, what are you going to tell that jury? 20 MR. PLOURDE: Then we win. 21 MR. ABOWITZ: Because -- 22 MR. PLOURDE: Because it's a unified literary work 23 written by the patient, wasn't properly renewed. 24 THE COURT: And under copyright law -- now, what I 25 want you to do is spell out -- 00824 { 9:56:11am} 01 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah. I'm getting it from both sides 02 and now I know where you guys are going. 03 THE COURT: I want you to articulate. "As the Judge 04 has instructed you under copyright law, you've got to find for 05 us because" -- 06 MR. PLOURDE: The patient had to renew. And since 07 the patient died before 1983, it had to be renewed by his 08 next-of-kin, his widow, his statutory heirs because it doesn't 09 fall into the other exceptions for renewal by a proprietor, 10 composite work or commissioned work, so it has to be renewed by 11 the patient, his heirs, widow, whatever and it wasn't renewed 12 by any of those. The only one that tried to renew it was The 13 Urantia Foundation who wasn't a statutory heir or next-of-kin, 14 obviously, or anything like that. 15 THE COURT: All right. Switch over to you. Your 16 argument is going to be -- and let's assume first that the jury 17 finds it was the patient subject was the author. Now, what's 18 your argument going to be? 19 MR. HILL: Well, we'll argue first that it was a 20 commissioned work. That the motivating factor for producing 21 the work was The Contact Commission. That the questions and 22 the persistence in having the contact sessions account for the 23 insistence prong of the insistence and expense test. That the 24 expense prong is met by the fact that The Contact Commission 25 raised up the money that was necessary to finance the 00825 { 9:56:13am} 01 production of the work and ultimately get the work published. 02 On the second prong, which is the right to control, 03 supervise, monitor the process of creation, we'll argue that 04 the oversight of both the contact sessions and The Forum 05 sessions where the questions were generated provides a measure 06 of control or supervision over the process; that as each paper 07 came in, there were further questions asked in the nature of 08 what amounts to an editorial process. 09 On the third factor, which is the supplying of the capital 10 necessary for the production of the work, we'll go back again 11 to the fact -- to Urantia Foundation exhibit 82, that over 12 $100,000 was invested in order to get the work into the 13 public. 14 And on the fourth prong regarding whether or not there was 15 payment made, we'll defer to the volunteer works portion of the 16 instruction that says if it was done as an accommodation or if 17 the volunteer worked with no expectation of payment, then that 18 factor is not relevant. And we will argue that the years -- 19 the many years of these contact sessions support an inference 20 that the person, subject, was a volunteer and that this overall 21 process was a voluntary process and, therefore, we meet all of 22 the requirements that are necessary. 23 But under the case law, even if the arrows point 24 differently on the different prongs of the analysis, it's for 25 the jury to decide according to the Murray v. Gelderman 00826 { 9:56:19am} 01 decision. 02 THE COURT: Okay. I think probably what I'm trying 03 to kind of demonstrate to you all is that this case outcome is 04 going to be determined by that jury of eight people out there, 05 and I think they're a pretty good -- relatively speaking, a 06 pretty good jury. I mean, they strike me as being a little 07 bit -- I envision the possibility that we might have a 08 completely unsophisticated jury, if that's a politically- 09 correct term to use, and I think they're a pretty good jury, 10 but I think my ability to explain the law to them in the form 11 of instructions is going to be almost impossible in language 12 that they're apt to really fully understand. And I think it's 13 going to be real important how you all lay out your arguments 14 to them whether they knowingly make the right decisions or 15 whether they just kind of strike out on various little issues. 16 And getting the consistency that's going to be required between 17 the interrogatories and the final verdict can be a complex 18 situation here. I don't want to have to do this case again 19 simply because the jury had inconsistent verdicts and all that 20 sort of thing. 21 Now, let me go back and ask for a refresher of memory on 22 the facts in this case with regard to the author issue. What 23 is your theory of what -- who dealt with the patient? Was 24 Dr. Sadler the only -- and his wife -- were they the only ones 25 that ever communicated personally and orally, directly with the 00827 { 9:56:24am} 01 patient? There was some talk about -- 02 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, there is just a morass of 03 descriptions of it and it's all hearsay. I mean, who knows who 04 dealt with the patient. 05 THE COURT: Is there any contention that The Contact 06 Commission ever talked directly with -- 07 MR. PLOURDE: Not from our side. 08 MR. HILL: Sure, there is. The Mind of Mischief, for 09 example, where Dr. Sadler writes about the stenographer taking 10 shorthand notes during the sessions. There were 250 nighttime 11 sessions over the course of 18 years. The Emma Christensen 12 letter, Michael Foundation exhibit 102, where she talks about 13 how she did use her shorthand in many of the sessions but not 14 in the final versions of the papers. That all supports the -- 15 THE COURT: Well, I got thoroughly confused. I 16 initially thought that most of the -- my scenario was that 17 Dr. Sadler, and his wife, I know, communicated with him, and 18 maybe someone else, and then he presented -- Dr. Sadler asked 19 him questions and then Dr. Sadler had these responses from him 20 which he read to The Forum and they had further discussions and 21 then composed different questions, and then Dr. Sadler 22 presented to them, him, those questions, or that proposed 23 question, and then sometimes mysteriously the answers to those 24 questions came back to Dr. Sadler directly and then he read 25 them, or they studied -- or the group studied those responses. 00828 { 9:56:26am} 01 But your suggestion is there was some of that but a good 02 bit of direct contact between The Contact Commission and the 03 patient himself. 04 Now, it is conceded that the patient's identity was never 05 revealed but is there -- it isn't conceded that nobody knew his 06 identity; is that correct? 07 MR. HILL: That's true. That's true. 08 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, -- I'm sorry. 09 MR. HILL: Oh, go ahead. 10 THE COURT: I mean, whatever -- 11 MR. HILL: I think -- 12 THE COURT: I'm trying to really find out what the 13 positions are. 14 MR. HILL: My understanding, from listening to 15 Mr. McMullan on cross, was that he was referring to a document 16 that was filed in the Burton case where Emma Christensen said 17 that Dr. Sadler had revealed to her the identity of the patient 18 but she did not know from her own personal knowledge. We 19 certainly take the position that what that means is that even 20 though she participated in the contact sessions, she did not, 21 outside of that contact, know who this person was of her own 22 personal knowledge but that Dr. Sadler had at some point told 23 her what this person's name was. I think if I understood 24 Mr. McMullan correctly, the inference that he draws from her 25 statement is that she never actually participated in any of the 00829 { 9:56:27am} 01 sessions, which we would take issue with based upon other 02 letters from Ms. Christensen and also from The Mind of Mischief 03 appendix by Dr. Sadler. 04 MR. ABOWITZ: They knew who he was, at 05 least Dr. Sadler -- 06 THE COURT: Yeah, and his wife. 07 MR. ABOWITZ: And his wife. There's no question they 08 knew who he was. Under this veil of secrecy, other than the 09 Christensen reference, who knows what the Kelloggs knew or 10 didn't know. Clearly, they knew who he was and didn't reveal 11 it. 12 THE COURT: But your contention, -- again, let me 13 back up a little. Your contention is that The Contact 14 Commission, the evidence doesn't support a finding that they 15 had direct interrogation or explanations or questions of the 16 subject patient; is that correct? Is that your position? 17 MR. PLOURDE: Certainly no evidence that I know of to 18 show that all six members of the so-called Contact Commission 19 ever sat down in a room with the patient. 20 THE COURT: And your argument is that the evidence 21 supports a finding to the contrary? 22 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL NODS HEAD) 23 THE COURT: Okay. Let's hear some discussion about 24 whether The Urantia Foundation is the proprietor of the 25 subject's work, let's say. Let's say he's found to be the 00830 { 9:56:30am} 01 author, what's your position in that regard? 02 MR. ABOWITZ: Proprietor in what respect? 03 THE COURT: Is the proprietor of the final Urantia 04 Book. 05 MR. ABOWITZ: As a work for hire, a commissioned 06 work, or -- 07 THE COURT: Whatever it is. Let's hear what's your 08 argument with regard -- let me ask you: Who else is the 09 proprietor other than the subject himself? 10 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah, what you're going to is -- as I 11 understand it, proprietor equals assignor if you're not talking 12 about a work for hire; is that -- 13 THE COURT: What I'm asking for is what evidence 14 there is about who owns -- what could a jury, a 15 reasonable-minded jury, find that this Urantia Book is or who 16 was a proprietor of that other than the patient and/or -- or 17 the patient or The Urantia Foundation? 18 MR. ABOWITZ: Under the 1909 law, they didn't have to 19 have a written assignment. The evidence is they had a verbal 20 assignment. We have no direct evidence to contradict that 21 other than the evidence that maybe there's something else going 22 on, that there's suspicious conditions involved, but they could 23 find under that evidence that as of 1955 Urantia Foundation had 24 a valid verbal assignment from the patient that would have 25 allowed them to be a proprietor. 00831 { 9:56:33am} 01 THE COURT: Okay. 02 MR. ABOWITZ: Now, with respect to the other parts of 03 it, was it a work for hire, was it something else, we've 04 already been through that evidence, from our standpoint, and 05 that indicates they couldn't have been a proprietor in that 06 respect. 07 MR. PLOURDE: One twist on what Murray said is that I 08 don't think there's anybody who has testified, "We got an oral 09 assignment from this patient." You know, I think that's what 10 the Burton court presumed based upon the fact that you had a 11 history of Urantia Foundation or its predecessor being in 12 possession of the manuscripts and the like, and I think they 13 presumed that that was some evidence of an oral assignment and 14 I suppose, you know, that this jury could find the same thing. 15 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, there's another question 16 here that came up, and I'm sure counsel will help me if I've 17 strayed here, but in going through this weekend the evidence, 18 or at least the evidence as I remember it, we have this trust 19 document that essentially is Mr. Kellogg assigning the rights 20 and interests in the plates to the trust. There isn't any 21 assignment of any right, title or interest in the work itself 22 from the patient, and assume that's a verbal assignment from 23 the patient to whomever, The Contact Commission, there's no 24 assignment from them to, assuming Kellogg is their 25 representative, and they're not a legal body, it's not a 00832 { 9:56:34am} 01 partnership, it's not a corporation, it's not an LLC. So 02 assuming Mr. Kellogg has the right to speak for that group and 03 convey his interest in the plates, there isn't -- there seems 04 to be a hole in the evidence that there is nothing that assigns 05 the right of The Contact Commission, if they had a right under 06 that verbal assignment, on to The Foundation. 07 MR. HILL: Burton and Maaherra both look to Section 08 3.3 of the Declaration of Trust, the language about Urantia 09 Foundation needing to maintain absolute control over the 10 means -- over all means of reproduction and translations of The 11 Urantia Book as being sufficiently broad language to connote 12 the transfer of common law of copyright in the manuscrips and 13 the plates to the still unpublished work, and we certainly take 14 that position. 15 MR. ABOWITZ: That is between Kellogg and The 16 Foundation. There's a lapse here. 17 THE COURT: What I'm trying to ask you is what 18 evidence is there in this case about who could be the 19 proprietor? 20 MR. HILL: Possession of the manuscripts and any 21 absence of affirmative evidence -- 22 THE COURT: Any kind of a claim by anyone else during 23 all that period of time? 24 MR. HILL: No. 25 THE COURT: Your position is firmly that there isn't 00833 { 9:56:37am} 01 any question but that Urantia Foundation is the proprietor? 02 MR. HILL: That's true. It doesn't matter whether 03 it's the Contact Commission that was the compiling entity and 04 therefore had a claim of authorship, the Maaherra, I guess, 05 line of thought, or the Burton line of thought that it came 06 from the subject as author and the manuscripts were in the 07 possession of Dr. Sadler. The possession of an unpublished 08 manuscript under the 1909 act had significance where it was 09 followed by registration of statutory copyright and no -- and 10 no contesting claim by the subject author, and that line of 11 thought is echoed in the Nimmer treatise. 12 MR. PLOURDE: And our response, Judge, is that, I 13 mean, if you've got a guy that comes to a psychiatrist for help 14 and the psychiatrist keeps his identity secret, keeps 15 everything about the production of the papers secret, keeps 16 everybody under an oath of silence for however many years, 17 there's some evidence that the patient died in the mid '50s, 18 and that's when they published it, after having all these 19 papers for 20-something years, when after the patient dies they 20 publish it. You know, that plus a few other circumstances 21 seems to me -- you know, some evidence -- 22 THE COURT: You want a jury to determine that they're 23 not the proprietor then, in other words? You want it to be a 24 jury determination or ask the jury to find that Urantia 25 Foundation is not the proprietor, and you want either an 00834 { 9:56:42am} 01 instruction or an assumption that they were; is that -- does 02 that reflect -- 03 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir. 04 THE COURT: -- the two positions that you have? 05 MR. HILL: Yes, Judge. 06 THE COURT: Okay. Now, I'm going to -- we've got -- 07 as a matter of fact, we were kind of under the impression that 08 it was pretty well agreed but I understand there has been a 09 dispute about that since the argument and so forth. But I'll 10 keep those two positions in mind when we get to the final 11 instructions conference. 12 Now, may commission works be renewed under the 1909 act? 13 What's your position with regard to that? 14 MR. PLOURDE: Commissioned works? 15 THE COURT: Yeah. 16 MR. PLOURDE: If it's a commissioned work, Judge -- 17 and I'm not the expert here, and Mr. Nimmer is -- but It's my 18 understanding -- 19 THE COURT: You're all I've got, counsel. 20 MR. PLOURDE: I know. I know. 21 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all we've all got, Judge. 22 MR. PLOURDE: And I'm not much. But that's not an 23 issue that I understand is in play. 24 THE COURT: Well, are both sides agreed -- this has 25 come up or been suggested -- are both sides agreed that we 00835 { 9:56:45am} 01 don't need to instruct on composite work? 02 MR. HILL: No, Judge. 03 THE COURT: What's your position? 04 MR. HILL: Composite works -- well, we take the 05 position that this is a -- 06 THE COURT: Or commissioned works. I'm sorry. 07 MR. HILL: Oh. 08 THE COURT: I'm sorry. On commissioned works. 09 MR. HILL: Oh, well, we definitely want to see the 10 instruction on commissioned works. 11 THE COURT: Can it be renewed under the 1909 act? 12 MR. HILL: Yes. 13 MR. ABOWITZ: A commissioned work? Is that the 14 question? 15 THE COURT: Yes. 16 MR. PLOURDE: A work for hire -- I mean, as I 17 understand it, a commissioned work is a species of work for 18 hire and I think -- I think the renewal was governed by the 19 later act. I don't think the 1909 act governed the renewal. I 20 think it's renewed under 304. 21 THE COURT: I guess what I'm trying to understand -- 22 MR. PLOURDE: Which allows -- 23 THE COURT: -- that picture music case, what's your 24 position with regard to that? I understand Nimmer was involved 25 in that to some extent and argues that it should be restricted 00836 { 9:56:47am} 01 to its very own fact. What are y'all contending there? Do you 02 know? 03 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, you've got me there. I'm sorry. 04 It's just not an issue that's been on my -- 05 THE COURT: Okay. But y'all both -- y'all both agree 06 that commissioned works may be renewed by a proprietor then, is 07 that -- are you both in accord -- 08 MR. PLOURDE: I think the statute says by the 09 employer. 10 THE COURT: Pardon? 11 MR. PLOURDE: I think the statute says -- the 304 12 says by the employer, they may be renewed by the employer. 13 THE COURT: And you're not agreeing then that it 14 could be renewed by a proprietor, if that didn't have to be an 15 employer for hire or something of that nature? 16 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, this is the first time I've ever 17 been in something where I just didn't know. That's so far over 18 my head that I can't respond to that. I'm sorry. 19 THE COURT: All right. 20 MR. HILL: They said proprietor in their original 21 instructions, 15, 19 and 21 on the work-for-hire issue. I 22 think the way they framed the issue was whether or not 23 The Urantia Foundation was the proprietor for work for hire. 24 THE COURT: And your position is -- 25 MR. HILL: Exactly the same. If it's a proprietor 00837 { 9:56:48am} 01 for work for hire, a commissioned work is a species of work for 02 hire. 03 THE COURT: Okay. Now, where are we going to wind up 04 if the jury finds that the contact subject did not author? 05 MR. PLOURDE: Then I understood that the issue was: 06 Is it a compilation? And that brings up just a whole lot of 07 stuff. I mean, our contention is that -- you know, obviously, 08 we don't agree with the Maaherra case, that the questions 09 constituted compilation. But to the extent that it does, then 10 you get to the issue of -- and you find that it's a 11 compilation, then you get to the issue of who can renew it, and 12 who can renew it is the compiler. 13 Under their contention, the compiler was The Contact 14 Commission. The Contact Commission is treated, if it's a 15 compiler, is treated the same as an author. There isn't a 16 proprietor-of-a-compiled-work exception under 304. So that it 17 would have to be renewed by the members of the -- the 18 individual members of The Contact Commission, their statutory 19 heirs or assigns, and it wasn't. It was attempted to be 20 renewed by The Urantia Foundation with no indication that there 21 was any -- that they were the statutory heirs, next of kin, 22 whatever. 23 THE COURT: So, basically what you're saying is that 24 compilations can be transferred. 25 And what's your position in regard to that? 00838 { 9:56:51am} 01 MR. HILL: Our position, Judge, is that the statute 02 says that the registrant of statutory copyright may renew a 03 copyright in a composite work. 04 If you read the Maaherra decision carefully, it talks 05 about the questions influencing not only the ultimate 06 arrangement of all of the papers within the book but the 07 arrangement of the subject matter within the individual papers 08 themselves, and we've already put some testimony into the 09 record about how the questions influenced -- influenced changes 10 in discreet arrangement of papers. And so we certainly would 11 take the position that each of the papers themselves were 12 capable of possessing copyright because they were themselves 13 compilation. You have a compilation of 196 compilations. The 14 original statutory registrant of that was Urantia Foundation 15 and, therefore, Urantia Foundation was entitled to renew as a 16 composite work. 17 THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that in any 18 way? 19 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, I mean, their argument all along 20 has been a compilation and it just doesn't fly under the 21 statute. 22 THE COURT: Under the cases? Okay. 23 What happens if the jury determines that the conduit or 24 the subject authored the papers but was not a work for hire or 25 commissioned work? What's the outcome? 00839 { 9:56:52am} 01 MR. PLOURDE: Subject authored the papers, not a work 02 for hire, and -- 03 THE COURT: Not a commissioned work. 04 MR. PLOURDE: Not a composite work? 05 THE COURT: Commissioned work. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: They lose. 07 THE COURT: That it's not a work for 08 hire/commissioned work? 09 MR. ABOWITZ: Is not? 10 THE COURT: Is not a work for hire/commissioned work. 11 MR. ABOWITZ: And the patient is the author? 12 THE COURT: The patient's the author. 13 MR. PLOURDE: We think the mere fact that you've got 14 one author negates the assumption that it could be a composite 15 work. And, so, if it's not a composite work and the jury finds 16 that it's not a commissioned work/work for hire, then they 17 lose. Again, because it's a unified work by a single author, 18 not for hire, has to be renewed by the author, his statutory 19 heirs, kin, whatever. 20 THE COURT: What's your position? 21 MR. HILL: Professor Nimmer writes in his treatise 22 that at least for purposes of the renewal provisions of the 23 1976 act, a composite work and a collective work are one in the 24 same. The test of a collective work is whether or not it's a 25 collection of papers, and the number of authors is not -- is 00840 { 9:56:54am} 01 not a consideration. Therefore, we take the position that, 02 again, if the jury decides, based on the evidence, that these 03 papers are more in the nature of papers than chapters within a 04 unified literary work, then it would be -- it would -- the jury 05 could find, based on the evidence, that it is a composite work 06 and, therefore, still renewable, although under a basis of 07 renewal that was not claimed in the renewal certificate itself. 08 THE COURT: Let me hear a brief discussion of whether 09 we need an instruction regarding corporate director or 10 liability shield. 11 MR. PLOURDE: Well, Judge, there's a couple of issues 12 here. 13 Number one was: Is it the corporation acting or was it 14 the individual acting when Harry McMullan did these acts? That 15 just goes to general corporate law. What does it take for a 16 corporate officer to be personally liable? We've offered an 17 instruction on that. We also pointed out that Oklahoma law 18 provides a shield for volunteers, for a nonprofit organization, 19 and we believe that adds an additional level. They argued it 20 was preempted. We presented the Court a case that indicates 21 it's not and we think we're entitled to have them instructed on 22 that. 23 MR. HILL: Well, our first argument is that these are 24 new affirmative defenses that were not preserved in any of the 25 pleadings nor in the pretrial order. 00841 { 9:56:56am} 01 Secondly, on the contributory copyright infringement 02 issue, there are reams of cases that hold that officers or 03 directors who meet the test of contributory infringement, which 04 is to say they knew there was a valid copyright and they 05 materially contributed in some way toward the infringing work, 06 are liable individually. That would go to the absence of a 07 corporate shield when those elements are met. 08 Then, in so far as the Oklahoma volunteer statute, we 09 think that there is an argument -- there would be an argument 10 there, if the Court found it wasn't waived in the pretrial 11 order, and we submitted a charge based on our understanding of 12 Oklahoma law, that he would have to show that he was acting in 13 good faith, that he was acting within the scope of his official 14 functions and duties for Michael Foundation, and that the 15 infringement of the copyright was not caused by either gross 16 negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. 17 THE COURT: With that instruction -- I mean, that's 18 given in our instruction on contributary liability; right? 19 MR. HILL: Yes, I think so. I think all of this is 20 subsumed in the theory of finding officers and directors 21 contributorily liable. In order for the jury to meet the 22 factual findings necessary to find contributory liability, 23 they're implicitly rejecting these shield and volunteer 24 liability defenses because it requires a finding that he 25 essentially was willful. 00842 { 9:56:58am} 01 THE COURT: But you are objecting to a shield 02 instruction as being unnecessary? 03 MR. HILL: It's unnecessary and we think that it's 04 waived. 05 THE COURT: Now, you raised the waiver issue but I 06 think that's particularly important with regard to the 07 volunteer immunity. Now, that issue was not mentioned in the 08 pretrial order as being an issue, was not a part of the 09 requested instructions that were submitted, but was raised 10 later; is that right? 11 MR. PLOURDE: That's correct. 12 THE COURT: Tell me why that isn't waived. 13 MR. PLOURDE: Well, Judge, what we're trying to do 14 here is figure out under what circumstances an officer of a 15 nonprofit organization is liable. I think that imparts an 16 issue of Oklahoma law. It isn't just a matter of, you know, 17 saying, "Okay, well, here's the copyright law. Did he 18 participate in this?" There has to be some determination of 19 what the standard is for making him liable and I think that 20 involves Oklahoma corporate law as well as copyright law. 21 THE COURT: Why wasn't it pointed out or raised 22 earlier in the procedure instead of right here toward the end? 23 MR. PLOURDE: I wish I had. 24 THE COURT: I understand you wish you did but is 25 there any reason why it shouldn't have been? 00843 { 9:57:02am} 01 Let me hear your arguments on waiver, I guess. 02 MR. PLOURDE: Well, the question, I guess, is: Is it 03 an affirmative defense? Again, Judge, I think it really goes 04 to the elements of what they have to prove in order to make us 05 liable as opposed to being an affirmative defense. 06 MR. HILL: Well, first of all, that just goes back to 07 the fact that when you instruct them on contributory liability, 08 you're requiring them to make an elevated finding regarding 09 willful and wanton misconduct. Secondly, the statute lays out 10 there are specific elements that must be proven in order to 11 fall within the defense of volunteer immunity, and my 12 understanding is that that makes it a classic affirmative 13 defense. It has the elements in the same way that an 14 affirmative cause of action has elements that must be shown if 15 one is to meet the test. That is in the nature of an 16 affirmative defense in my mind. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Gentlemen, I'll keep these under 18 consideration. We probably have another -- we'll get a little 19 more formalized on the instructions conferences as we go along 20 here. 21 How many more witnesses do you anticipate calling, Steve? 22 MR. HILL: We anticipate calling at least two and 23 possibly three. We are not going to call Elizabeth Engstrom. 24 MR. ABOWITZ: I spent the whole weekend trying to 25 find out if she's ever questioned a celestial being. 00844 { 9:57:03am} 01 THE COURT: Who is it you outsmarted him on? 02 MR. HILL: I'm not going to call the literary 03 analyst. 04 MR. ABOWITZ: The person that has studied many 05 celestial authors and who knows they have different styles. 06 THE COURT: Okay. How many rebuttal witnesses do you 07 all have? 08 MR. ABOWITZ: One, if it's still questionable. It 09 will be Mr. McMullan and it may be 10 or 15 minutes. 10 THE COURT: Okay. So we're talking about tomorrow 11 then; is that correct? 12 MR. ABOWITZ: Looks that way. 13 THE COURT: Getting the evidence concluded tomorrow; 14 right? 15 MR. HILL: I don't know. How long do you think -- 16 how much more cross-examination do you have for Ms. Baney? I 17 have -- 18 MR. ABOWITZ: How much do you want? 19 MR. HILL: How much do I want? 20 MR. ABOWITZ: Depends on whether you want to get this 21 thing to the jury tomorrow. I'm not making a conscientious 22 effort to speed this along. 23 THE COURT: I have an idea -- 24 MR. ABOWITZ: You have three live witnesses. Any 25 deposition presentations to make? 00845 { 9:57:06am} 01 MR. HILL: I don't think we'll make any more 02 deposition presentations. 03 MR. PLOURDE: We're not going to hear from -- 04 MR. HILL: The issues are out of the case. We were 05 going to read the portions of the deposition where he was 06 talking about him and Mr. McMullan setting up the Internet 07 service for that one domain but that's irrelevant now. 08 MR. ABOWITZ: The witnesses are Ms. Williams -- 09 MR. HILL: Possibly Ms. Williams, definitely 10 Ms. Newsom, definitely Ms. Garner. 11 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay. We'll be finished today. 12 THE COURT: Huh? 13 MR. ABOWITZ: We'll finish today. 14 MR. HILL: We will finish the evidence today. 15 THE COURT: That means we'll probably have to have an 16 instruction -- final instructions conference in the morning and 17 I'll figure out when to have the jury come back. 18 Have you had any further discussions or had any movement 19 at all toward getting it amicably -- if not amicably then 20 peaceably resolved? 21 MR. HILL: My client -- My client is still against 22 the notion of the general public license but still willing to 23 talk if there's something that we can do individually. 24 THE COURT: Do I need to talk to your man any further 25 or not? 00846 { 9:57:07am} 01 MR. PLOURDE: No. I think he's tried to formulate 02 some positions that would involve something less than a general 03 public licensing and I think has -- 04 MR. ABOWITZ: May I ask a hypothetical question? 05 THE COURT: Sure. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: Without binding anybody or anything 07 else, what are the parameters that you would be willing to 08 discuss outside of a wholesale general license to publish? 09 THE COURT: Let me inject a question here before he 10 answers that. 11 I don't feel -- I've been at this so long and I don't feel 12 any great discomfort in sitting as settlement judge in my own 13 cases, particularly -- well, if it's a jury case. I just 14 don't -- it doesn't bother me. If it makes either of you all 15 uncomfortable, I could probably get Judge Russell or someone 16 else to sit in. Do you think that would make any difference? 17 Do either one of you feel uncomfortable -- 18 MR. ABOWITZ: Let me say this and for the benefit of 19 counsel. If the case is going to be settled, I know of no 20 better judge to get it settled. I have no objection. 21 THE COURT: I want to be sure no one was 22 uncomfortable with this discussion. 23 MR. PLOURDE: I thought that's what you were trying 24 to do is make us uncomfortable. 25 THE COURT: We had the ADR class up here, you know, 00847 { 9:57:09am} 01 and they wanted -- a teacher wanted me to make a few comments 02 because I've been doing this a lot and one of the students very 03 perceptively asked, said, "Do you ever feel that you're going 04 too far? Do you do them in your own case?" and I said, "Oh, 05 yeah," and he said, "How do you know when you've gone too 06 far?" and I said, "When I hear the arms breaking and the blood 07 flowing, then I think maybe I've gone just a little bit too 08 far," but I've never reached that point. 09 MR. ABOWITZ: Oh, yes you have, Judge. 10 THE COURT: We might better go, at this point since 11 we are in kind of settlement negotiations, off the record. 12 MR. PLOURDE: One other housekeeping subject. 13 MR. HILL: Just to close this loop, it sounds to me 14 like we're going to finish early today. It might be worth -- 15 might be worth us having a conversation this evening before we 16 get into the final charging conference. 17 MR. ABOWITZ: Let me just pose this: I've been in 18 cases where, you know, there was that attitude and then 19 something happened that turned off the spigot. So if there's 20 some discussion to be had, we ought to be thinking about the 21 discussion. 22 THE COURT: Right now? 23 MR. ABOWITZ: Rather than defer it. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Since we're going into settlement 25 discussions, we'll go off the record. 00848 { 9:57:10am} 01 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, the housekeeping matter. 02 MR. HILL: Back on the record with a housekeeping 03 matter. 04 MR. PLOURDE: I understood, under the local rules, 05 and I'm not being critical, but I understand we were prohibited 06 from filing any discovery matter unless the Court authorized us 07 to do so. What I'd like to do is to file our request for 08 admissions and their response so that we've got that on the 09 record. Is there -- Could I have permission to do that? 10 THE COURT: Do you have any problem? 11 MR. HILL: You want to file them? 12 MR. PLOURDE: Yeah, in the case. I've noticed you 13 filed depositions under just notice of filing and I've thought 14 about doing that. 15 MR. HILL: Well, we only did it so the Court would 16 have the transcripts to give us in the event -- I've been in 17 some federal jury trials before where if you didn't file the 18 deposition you wanted to read, the Court wouldn't let you read 19 from a copy. 20 THE COURT: Okay. You want to file the discovery 21 motions? 22 MR. PLOURDE: No, just the request for admissions and 23 the responses. 24 THE COURT: I think they're permissible. 25 MR. PLOURDE: Okay. 00849 { 9:57:12am} 01 THE COURT: I assume they're permissible unless you 02 have some reason to suggest they're not. 03 MR. HILL: No. 04 THE COURT: Okay. Now then, housekeeping orders out 05 of the way, we'll go off the record. 06 (A DISCUSSION WAS HAD OFF THE RECORD, AFTER WHICH A RECESS 07 WAS HAD) 08 00850 { 1:03:00pm} 01 AFTERNOON SESSION 02 MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001 03 --------------------------------------------------------------- 04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 05 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 06 THE COURT: All we need is to plow up another stump, 07 you know. 08 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, I'm troubled by what I heard in 09 there. We have about a half day's worth of evidence left. As 10 long as there's still an issue as to who's the author, I can't 11 abandon that portion of the evidence. But if we're going to 12 have some agreement on who it is, then I can get rid of that. 13 THE COURT: And what does your evidence consist of? 14 MR. ABOWITZ: The cross-examination of these people, 15 they've taken a position it's somebody else. 16 MR. HILL: Well, we do believe that there's celestial 17 authorship, Judge. 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I can't hear you. 19 MR. HILL: We do believe that there is celestial 20 authorship, that that is their belief, Judge, and they're happy 21 to share that belief and they have with the jury. The case law 22 indicates that whether they believe that or not is irrelevant 23 at where the evidence -- where the only reasonable inference to 24 be drawn from the evidence -- 25 THE COURT: Well, the only safe thing I could advise 00851 { 1:32:56pm} 01 Murray to do is to not forego any evidence that you were going 02 to present or any cross-examination and we'll tolerate it even 03 though we might -- unless the parties can stipulate. 04 MR. ABOWITZ: That's what I wanted to ask. If this 05 case says that, why can't we both agree that under that case 06 the judge must instruct a jury that it's the patient? 07 MR. HILL: I think that we can probably work out some 08 kind of a suitable instruction regarding instructing that the 09 legal material author for copyright law purposes is the subject 10 in this case and you should start your analysis from that 11 premise. I don't have a problem with that. 12 MR. ABOWITZ: If that's the case and that's what the 13 suggestion is to the Court that that's how the Court has to 14 react to it legally, then I'm wasting all my time with this who 15 the author is. 16 THE COURT: Well, if y'all can do that on a short 17 basis, we'll wait a few minutes, but otherwise I think we're 18 going to have to go on. 19 MR. ABOWITZ: All right. 20 THE COURT: Let's just go on and put on what you want 21 to and then if we reach it later on, why, we can do it. All 22 right. 23 Have them brought on in, Bev. 24 Everyone please stand. 25 00852 { 1:34:22pm} 01 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 02 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 03 THE COURT: Be seated, please, ladies and gentlemen 04 of the jury. 05 May I first inquire if anything occurred to any of you 06 during the recess that would prevent any one of you from 07 continuing to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case, 08 would you so indicate. 09 I gather not. 10 Now, I want to apologize to you or explain to you, I 11 should say rather than apologize, that I got you back here at 12 10 o'clock this morning, and I think I mentioned to you that we 13 had a number of legal matters to take care of outside the 14 presence of the jury and I let you stay late and then I got you 15 back too early after all. It's not all wasted time. I want 16 you to understand that we did take longer than I expected to 17 but there's some good news about it. 18 In the beginning, I told you that this case involved both 19 copyright issues and trademark issues. Well, I'm happy to 20 report that the trademark issues have now been resolved, and 21 that's good news because you won't have to learn or understand 22 or worry about several issues that involved the copyright marks 23 and all that sort of thing. But there's still plenty of work 24 for you all to do in this case. We still have the copyright 25 issues and those are at least as complex and detailed and 00853 { 1:35:39pm} 01 require a great deal of work on your part and on my part as 02 well. 03 I want to remind you that our roles are that you're here 04 helping to resolve this dispute by listening to the evidence 05 and deciding what the facts are. I'm here to rule on the 06 procedures and also to instruct you with regard to what the law 07 is at the conclusion of this case so you all can arrive at a 08 verdict. And we're still in that same phase, both of us: you 09 with regard to the facts, me with regard to the law insofar as 10 the copyright issues are concerned. 11 And with that explanation, I'll call on -- I believe your 12 next witness -- or you may resume the stand. 13 And I'll remind you -- yes -- I'll remind you that you're 14 under the same oath that was previously administered. 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 16 BY MR. ABOWITZ: 17 Q. Good afternoon. 18 A. Good afternoon. 19 Q. Welcome back to Oklahoma. 20 A. I didn't go anywhere. 21 Q. Okay. Just as a coupling to your testimony on Friday, you 22 are the executive director of The Urantia Foundation? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And have been for several years? 25 A. Five. 00854 { 1:37:06pm} 01 Q. Five years. 02 And one of the duties and responsibilities you have as the 03 executive director is to be the custodian of the books and 04 records and files and papers of The Urantia Foundation; is that 05 correct? 06 A. Yes. 07 Q. All right. We talked Friday about a release that The 08 Foundation put out saying all the things that were wrong, in 09 their opinion, with respect to JANR. We covered all of them 10 that were pertinent except for the one that said it was 11 illegal. The Urantia Foundation's view of its illegality is 12 based on The Urantia Foundation's view that its copyright is 13 valid; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And if the copyright is not valid, then The Michael 16 Foundation's printing of JANR and distribution of that work 17 would not be illegal; is that correct? 18 A. If the copyright is not valid. 19 Q. All right. 20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 92, please? 21 A. I'm sorry. I cannot see that very well. 22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Nobody can. How about that? Is that 23 better? 24 A. Yes. May I have a copy of it? 25 Q. Yeah, I'll bring you a copy. 00855 { 1:38:35pm} 01 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Judge? Your Honor, may I? 02 THE COURT: Sure. 03 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Please take the time you need to read 04 that. 05 A. It's a long document. Hold on. 06 Q. A lot of legal words in there. 07 A. I'm getting there. 08 Okay. I've read it. That doesn't mean I totally 09 understand it. 10 Q. Let me ask you, before we get into it, will you be able -- 11 could you discuss the terms that are set out in this letter, 12 composite work, compilation, matters like that? 13 A. I am really not aware. 14 Q. All right. 15 A. And I would -- I would not like to do that. 16 Q. I understand you wouldn't like to but do you have a 17 layman's -- 18 A. No, I'm not sure that I know exactly what that means in 19 the law. I mean, I know briefly what we've been talking about 20 but -- 21 Q. All right. 22 A. -- you would have to simplify it for me. 23 Q. This letter is dated November 5th, 1999. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did that arrive at the Urantia Foundation on your watch? 00856 { 1:42:38pm} 01 A. I believe so. 02 Q. You were the executive director at that time? 03 A. Yes. 04 Q. Was this letter something that you opened? 05 A. No. 06 Q. Who would have opened it? 07 A. My secretary. 08 Q. And then given it to you? 09 A. Given it to either Mindy Williams or myself. 10 Q. Do you recall getting this letter? 11 A. I recall seeing this letter, yes. 12 Q. At or about November 5th, 1999? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What did you do with it when you got it? 15 A. I forwarded it onto the trustees. 16 Q. Each one of them? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you meet with them after that about this letter? 19 A. I don't recall that we met about this letter specifically. 20 Q. Did you discuss this letter with them? 21 A. This letter was -- I think I discussed this letter with 22 the president who then discussed it with the other trustees. 23 I'm not sure -- well, I know that there was not a special 24 meeting on this letter. 25 Q. I'm sorry. There was -- 00857 { 1:43:45pm} 01 A. There was not a special meeting -- 02 Q. Was not? 03 A. -- on this letter, to my knowledge. Well, if there was, I 04 was not included. 05 Q. What discussion did you have with the president? And that 06 would have been Mr. Keeler? 07 A. Yes. 08 Just simply telling him that this came in and that 09 everyone should take a good read of it and then we would talk 10 to Mr. Hill. 11 Q. Your lawyer? 12 A. Yes, uh-huh. Who, I presume, if you didn't send it to 13 him, we did. 14 Q. Without telling me anything that comes from communication 15 with your lawyers, can you tell me why The Foundation never 16 responded to that letter? 17 A. No, I cannot. 18 Q. Could you tell me if you were able to reveal matters that 19 were communicated to you from your lawyer or lawyers? 20 A. Come again. Try that again. 21 Q. Yeah. What I'm trying to determine was: Can you not tell 22 us why The Foundation didn't respond to that because you know 23 and it's a basis of privileged communication, or you just don't 24 know? 25 A. I don't know why it wasn't. This was -- 00858 { 1:45:13pm} 01 Q. All right. 02 A. This is a trustee decision to respond or not, not mine. 03 Q. You're their right-hand -- I was going to say "guy" -- but 04 their person; right? 05 A. Well, I am -- I carry out what they decide to do. 06 Q. And is it an accurate statement that given the nature of 07 your responsibilities with The Urantia Foundation, that you're 08 usually somewhere around the place that the decision is being 09 made? 10 A. Sometimes. 11 Q. And is it your testimony in this instance you were not? 12 A. I was not aware of any decision to answer this or not to 13 answer this. 14 Q. So, then you cannot tell us why it was not responded to? 15 A. No, -- 16 Q. All right. 17 A. -- I cannot. 18 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you please scroll to the second 19 page, please. 20 I'm sorry. Let's go back to the first page. 21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you understand what is meant by the 22 compiler of a composite work? 23 A. A compiler of a composite work? Proprietor of a composite 24 work? Where are you? 25 Q. Right here. 00859 { 1:46:42pm} 01 A. Yes, uh-huh. The person who put the composite work 02 together. 03 Q. Do you know what a composite work is? 04 A. It's, I believe, a group of individual pieces put together 05 into a composite. 06 Q. Okay. Have you ever taken a position on behalf of The 07 Foundation, you personally in writing, about its position on 08 its copyright, why the copyright is valid? 09 A. I don't recall, but I would take a position that the 10 copyright is valid. 11 Q. I know you would, but I'm asking you: Have you ever 12 expressed that and the reasons for that in writing to someone 13 that inquired? 14 A. I don't recall at this point. 15 Q. All right. Thank you. 16 MR. ABOWITZ: You can take that down. 17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) We discussed the other day -- 18 MR. ABOWITZ: May I hand these books back up to the 19 witness, Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Sure. 21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You indicated to us on Friday that you 22 thought that Mr. McMullan had done a very good job and a 23 tasteful job in putting together the cover and the other 24 materials on Jesus - A New Revelation with the exception of the 25 Dali painting on the front cover. And you indicated that it 00860 { 1:49:00pm} 01 was an attractive volume and would attract readers and 02 purchasers; is that correct? 03 A. I think you're correct. 04 Q. Okay. And you also, I believe, -- if I may show you this 05 book. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Judge? 07 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of 08 the jury and the Court what this book is? 09 A. During the time of the Maaherra case when Judge Urbom 10 declared in summary judgment that we no longer had a copyright 11 on this book, The Fellowship then immediately printed this book 12 and it was sold for two years until we received our copyright 13 back in 1997. 14 Q. Did you testify as to how many of those volumes were sold 15 or distributed? 16 A. I don't believe so because I don't know that. 17 Q. Now, would you agree with me that that version of 18 The Urantia Book would be much more attractive to prospective 19 readers and purchasers than the paperback volume underneath it 20 which is The Urantia Foundation publication? 21 A. I would agree with you that this would be more attractive 22 to Christians, and that it would not be attractive to people of 23 other faiths. 24 Q. Would it be -- somebody -- You testified the other day, 25 and there's been other testimony, that at this period of time 00861 { 1:50:45pm} 01 religious and spiritual book sales have increased. 02 A. Yes. 03 Q. And anything with a replication of Jesus on the front 04 would more likely sell than a book that did not have that 05 replication? 06 A. Yes. Particularly -- absolutely to Christians, yes, and 07 we have a very large Christian population in the United States, 08 as you know. 09 Q. So, you've said the JANR book is attractive, and this 10 other book is more attractive to readers. Is there anything 11 that prevents The Urantia Foundation from making its volume 12 more attractive to the readership and prospective buyers? 13 A. I think we have made our volume more attractive than this 14 original book that we have now. There are more and more 15 individuals of different faiths in the United States and 16 throughout the world. We do not just sell this in the United 17 States. We sell it in all of the English-speaking countries of 18 the world. There are many different faiths. And to have 19 pictures on the front of a book prohibits some faiths from ever 20 picking it up, particularly Jesus, whereas they would pick this 21 up and if they read it they would accept Jesus as their savior, 22 be aware of a loving unified universe, and still continue to 23 practice their particular faith but while having the additional 24 information of the life of Jesus and his particular -- and 25 Christianity, and basic Christianity. 00862 { 1:52:39pm} 01 Q. So, in those relevant markets where persons of 02 non-Christian faith are perspective purchasers, JANR can't 03 compete with The Urantia Book because it has a replication of 04 Jesus on the front of it that some might find offensive, some 05 of other religions? 06 A. We are talking about places like Africa, perhaps China, 07 India. We have the largest amount of human beings on the 08 planet in these areas. Christians are now in the -- you know, 09 compared to Islam, we are not as prevalent in the world. Islam 10 is the fastest growing religion at this time. 11 Q. So the answer to my question is yes, JANR cannot compete 12 with that cover in those relevant markets where the cover would 13 be offensive to prospective purchasers? 14 A. If I had to say yes or no, I would probably say that it 15 could not compete in a country which was 90 percent Muslim. 16 Q. Or any market where those that might look at it find it 17 offensive wouldn't buy it? 18 A. Probably, yes. 19 Q. All right. But that being the case, there isn't anything 20 that would prevent Urantia Foundation from placing a different 21 cover on its publication of Urantia Book in the United States 22 to attract the people that might find the other version of The 23 Urantia Book and JANR attractive packages, is there? 24 A. Well, there has been -- you have to understand there has 25 been much discussion about this book cover and about changing 00863 { 1:54:40pm} 01 our cover from a plain white cover to something with some color 02 that would be easily seen on the bookshelf, a smaller version 03 that is easily picked up that you can travel with, etc. 04 We feel that this should attract Jews, it should attract 05 Christians, it should attract Muslims, it should attract 06 Hindus, it should attract Buddhists and all faiths. That the 07 minute that we put something like this or like this 08 (INDICATING) on the front of our book, we limit our exposure to 09 all human beings who are interested in spirituality. And a 10 Buddhist may pick this up and read about the universal father, 11 about religious thought, about philosophy, about science, about 12 anthropology, and then discover the life of Jesus in the back 13 and become more aware of the life of Jesus. 14 Q. Are you saying that this example you picked out, a 15 Buddhist would not buy that book if he or she thought there was 16 a section that was devoted to the life of Jesus? 17 A. I can't place myself in the mind of a Buddhist, but if 18 someone is looking for additional information on spirituality, 19 they would think this is more in the middle than this. 20 Q. Notwithstanding that the text is the same? 21 A. Notwithstanding, they'd have no idea. 22 Q. Okay. So you're looking at it from a marketer's 23 standpoint, and it is true, is it not, that Urantia 24 Foundation's cover, the package which it is selling, in which 25 it wraps the text of The Urantia Book, is one that they make by 00864 { 1:56:54pm} 01 choice? That's their choice to have that cover on it? 02 A. This cover? 03 Q. Right. 04 A. Yes. 05 Q. And the fact that it is not as attractive as the other 06 version of The Urantia Book and not as attractive as JANR is 07 only because Urantia Foundation has chosen to produce and 08 market the book in that form; is that correct? 09 A. No. That's your opinion. I think -- 10 Q. Not my opinion. I want to know what you -- 11 A. Oh. Well, you have to understand I think this is just as 12 attractive. I didn't say this wasn't attractive. I never said 13 this wasn't attractive. 14 Q. Let me put it this way -- 15 A. So you have to do a better job on that one. I'm not sure 16 what you're saying. 17 Q. I thought you said Friday that JANR is a more attractive 18 book for the perspective purchaser because it has a replication 19 of the Dali painting of Jesus on the front cover. 20 A. To the Christian market. 21 Q. All right. 22 A. Okay? That is very attractive to the Christian market. 23 Q. And my point to you was -- or the question that I've asked 24 you is that the reason The Urantia Book doesn't have that 25 replication or another replication or some other famous 00865 { 1:58:16pm} 01 depiction of Jesus or some episode in his life is that they 02 chose not to do so; is that correct? 03 A. Urantia Foundation chose not to put a picture of Jesus on 04 the front of The Urantia Book, yes. 05 Q. So if a picture of Jesus on the front of that book is 06 necessary to compete in the relevant Christian market, Urantia 07 Foundation has chosen not to compete in that market with a 08 replication of Jesus on the cover; is that correct? 09 A. We believe that we do compete in that market. We have 10 found that the majority of our readers are Christian, so we 11 compete very much in that market. 12 Q. But you have chosen not to put some depiction of Jesus or 13 his life on the cover of that book? 14 A. We have chosen not to do so, yes. 15 Q. And would you agree that not doing so makes it less 16 attractive when compared to a book with that photograph or 17 depiction on the front of it? 18 A. Only to Christians. I don't agree with that. 19 Q. Thank you. 20 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Judge? 21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you recognize this as the CD version 22 of The Urantia Book? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And is the table of contents or the -- 25 A. Parts of the book? 00866 { 2:00:10pm} 01 Q. -- parts of the book, is that essentially what's on this 02 CD? 03 A. Yes. 04 Q. And would you read those to the jury, please. 05 A. Part I, the Central and Super Universes; Part II, The 06 Local Universe; Part III, The History of Urantia; Part IV, The 07 Life and Teachings of Jesus. 08 Q. And that's all that is on that CD? 09 A. Do you want me to read the -- oh, yes, that's all that's 10 on the CD. 11 Q. So, if I, in our hypothetical example, am a person other 12 than Christian faith, I would see that that refers to Jesus 13 immediately; right? 14 A. Yes, you would. 15 Q. All right. Thank you. 16 A. This is in English, French and Finnish. 17 Q. So, if I plug this in my computer, I can get all three 18 versions? 19 A. Yes, you can, all for one. 20 Q. You mentioned Friday that Mr. Kellogg, I believe, with the 21 help of contributors, purchased plates to print The Urantia 22 Book? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And the plates are, as I understand the process, are taken 25 from the text itself? You have to have the text before you 00867 { 2:01:50pm} 01 have the plates? 02 A. The typed text, yes. 03 Q. Right. And in this case we've all agreed that the typed 04 text that wound up as The Urantia Book was at one time in the 05 handwriting of the patient? 06 A. The final manuscript was in the handwriting of the 07 patient, yes. 08 Q. So, the text as we have discussed it is different from the 09 plates; one is in paper, in that sense, and the other is in 10 some metal form that goes into a printing press? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And would you agree that an assignment of plates is not an 13 assignment of the text? 14 A. I'm not sure what you're talking about. 15 Q. Okay. Mr. Kellogg, I believe you said, assigned his 16 rights in those plates to The Urantia Foundation. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. Am I correct? 19 A. Yes, uh-huh. 20 Q. Is there any assignment of the text to The Urantia 21 Foundation? 22 A. The plates are the text. At that point, the plates are 23 used to print this text. That's what they're used for. You 24 cannot print -- the first 1955 edition of The Urantia Book was 25 printed with those plates. You could not print the 1955 00868 { 2:03:32pm} 01 edition of The Urantia Book without those plates. They were 02 the basis of how the book was printed. 03 Q. You couldn't produce the plates without the text though, 04 could you? 05 A. We have -- We have text from the first -- We have plated 06 text checking papers from the first part I and part II of The 07 Urantia Book. 08 Q. My question is: You cannot have the plates without having 09 the written text? 10 A. No, you cannot. Absolutely. 11 Q. You could not have the text without having the handwritten 12 version of it as we have discussed in the handwriting of the 13 patient? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Correct? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. Do you -- You don't have any view that Mr. McMullan has 18 an absolute dedication to the teaching of The Urantia Book, do 19 you? 20 A. Ask me that question again. I do not have any view, or I 21 do have a view, or what? 22 Q. Let me ask it again. 23 A. Please, yes. 24 Q. My question is: You do not have a view, do you, that 25 Mr. McMullan is not absolutely dedicated to the teachings of 00869 { 2:05:05pm} 01 The Urantia Book? 02 A. I believe he is dedicated to what he understands about 03 The Urantia Book. 04 Q. And your quarrel with him is that his approach is 05 different from that of The Foundation; is that correct? 06 A. My quarrel with -- 07 Q. I'll withdraw the question. 08 A. I'm not sure about quarreling with Mr. McMullan. 09 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you. That's all I have. 10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. HILL: 12 Q. Does Urantia Foundation have the resources and wherewithal 13 to print its various English and translated versions of 14 The Urantia Book in multiple covers to appeal to those target 15 markets of each religious faith? 16 A. No, and I would say that in the business of publishing, it 17 would not be a good idea. It would be very confusing for the 18 market. 19 Q. Have you ever seen any Urantia Foundation records 20 indicating that the subject in this case objected to The 21 Contact Commission's possession of any of the unpublished 22 manuscripts of the Urantia Papers? 23 A. No, and we have records for 50 years and there are no -- 24 nothing in any of our records having anything to do with that. 25 Q. Have you ever seen any records indicating that the subject 00870 { 2:06:46pm} 01 or anyone other than Urantia Foundation has ever claimed 02 copyright in any of the Urantia Papers? 03 A. No, we have never seen anything like that. 04 Q. Has anyone ever argued in court against Urantia 05 Foundation's copyright that the absence of written assignment 06 from the subject invalidates the copyright? 07 A. Yes. Burton. 08 MR. ABOWITZ: Object to the question, Your Honor, and 09 ask that the answer be stricken. 10 THE COURT: Restate the question. Don't answer it 11 again. 12 MR. HILL: Sure. 13 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Has anyone ever argued in court against 14 Urantia Foundation's copyright that there was no written 15 assignment from the subject? 16 THE COURT: If you know, you may answer. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Who made that argument? 19 A. Mr. Burton did, and it was thrown out on summary judgment. 20 Q. And other than the Burton case and the Maaherra case, are 21 there any other cases that you're aware of where Urantia 22 Foundation has had to litigate the validity of its copyright? 23 A. Yes, the King case in California. 24 Q. And was Urantia Foundation's copyright upheld in that 25 case? 00871 { 2:07:54pm} 01 A. Yes, it was. 02 Q. Are there any stories in The Urantia Book that stand alone 03 -- that are capable of standing alone, setting aside the 04 complete biography of Jesus? 05 A. Well, there's a wonderful story about Adam and Eve that 06 you could read that starts and finishes. It's very 07 descriptive. There's a wonderful explanation of the apostles 08 in part IV. There's the origin of planetary life that is very 09 interesting. There is the universal father, the first five 10 pages of The Urantia Book, that could stand alone, the 11 attributes of God. It's the highest theology of the father 12 concept. 13 There are the Urmia lectures that have to do with 14 sovereignty and personal sovereignty and the sovereignty of God 15 that would stand alone. 16 There are the Rodan papers again that would stand alone 17 based on the philosophy of religion. 18 Q. If there are the stories and sections in The Urantia Book 19 that could stand alone, then why does Urantia Foundation take 20 the position that it wants to maintain the text as an inviolate 21 whole? 22 A. Well, we believe that we were given this book in the 23 proper manner, that it's structured the way it should be, and 24 that as you read it, you receive much information on science, 25 history and religion and you build upon that, and the way that 00872 { 2:09:33pm} 01 it's structured is very important. We, personally, at Urantia 02 Foundation have the Declaration of Trust that asks us to keep 03 this inviolate text the way that we have received it. 04 Q. What is Urantia Foundation seeking out of this lawsuit? 05 A. We would like relief from Mr. McMullan attacking our 06 copyright and marks in a commercial manner. We would -- We 07 have spent tremendous resources, human and financial, on this 08 case. It has taken us away from our publishing and our 09 dissemination and our translating of this Urantia Book. 10 Q. If that's the case, if getting involved in a court case 11 such as this one takes you away from other things that Urantia 12 Foundation wants to do and takes away precious resources from 13 Urantia Foundation, why do it at all? Why not just ignore what 14 Mr. McMullan has done? 15 MR. ABOWITZ: Object to the form, Judge. 16 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. Do you 17 understand the question? 18 THE WITNESS: I think so. 19 A. Would you repeat that again, please? 20 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Sure. Assuming that it takes resources 21 away and distracts you and others at Urantia Foundation, why 22 get involved in the court case at all? Why not just ignore 23 what Mr. McMullan has done and continue on? 24 A. Mostly because we believe that this book is what it 25 purports to be. Our Declaration of Trust asks us to go forward 00873 { 2:11:24pm} 01 to control the printing of this book and the inviolate text to 02 make sure that it can be translated and disseminated. 03 MR. HILL: No further questions. Thank you. 04 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 05 BY MR. ABOWITZ: 06 Q. Is there any evidence that this patient/contact 07 personality ever knew that The Contact Commission had 08 possession of this work? 09 A. I believe there is some documentation that he was -- that 10 he knew about it but was unconcerned. 11 Q. Do you know -- How do you know he knew about it? 12 A. I believe it says in The Urantia Book that he was 13 unconcerned about this project. 14 Q. Other than in The Urantia Book. 15 A. I believe that we have heard some testimony in this case 16 that the subject was aware of the -- of these papers going on 17 and had, in fact, had comments and read some of them. 18 Q. My question is: Is there any evidence to indicate that 19 the patient knew that The Contact Commission took possession of 20 the papers in a legal sense? In other words, deprived him of 21 any right he had in the papers. Is there any evidence of that? 22 MR. HILL: I'm going to object on the basis it calls 23 for a legal conclusion. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer, if you know. 25 A. You have not heard any evidence to this time. 00874 { 2:13:18pm} 01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) All right. Is there any evidence that 02 the patient ever consented to the copyright? 03 A. Not to my knowledge and I don't think we've heard that 04 yet. 05 Q. Now, you have gone through the litany of a number of cases 06 in which the copyright issue has been tried. Has a jury ever 07 decided it? 08 A. No, sir. 09 Q. Okay. Now, you've indicated about the different parts 10 that you thought stand alone. Do you agree with Mr. Keeler's 11 view that the authors never intended it to be read separately? 12 A. Yes, I agree with his viewpoint. 13 Q. And, so, whether we think it is or not, the intention was 14 it was never to be read in that sense; is that correct? 15 A. The intention, I believe, was so. 16 Q. And that it's to be a unified work? 17 A. I believe they gave it to us in that context. 18 MR. ABOWITZ: May I have exhibit 87, please? 19 Can you enhance that somehow? What I'm interested in is 20 this part (INDICATING). 21 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) In fact, The Urantia Foundation, in its 22 objection to JANR, said what? Number 2. It's on the screen 23 behind you. 24 A. I can see it. "It does not preserve the text, the entire 25 text, inviolate." 00875 { 2:15:14pm} 01 Q. And that's the view of The Urantia Foundation; right? 02 A. Yes. 03 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you. That's all I have. 04 THE COURT: You may step down. 05 (WITNESS EXCUSED) 06 THE COURT: Call your next witness, Mr. Hill -- or 07 Mr. Schoenthaler. 08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I call Barb Newsom, Your Honor. 09 THE COURT: Come forward, please, and raise your 10 right hand be sworn. 11 (WITNESS SWORN) 12 BARBARA A. NEWSOM, 13 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, 14 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: 15 THE COURT: Be seated here, please, ma'am. Speak 16 into the microphone and state your full name and spell your 17 last name, please. 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. 19 THE COURT: The smaller microphone is adjustable. 20 THE WITNESS: All right. My name is Barbara A. 21 Newsom, N-E-W-S-O-M. 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER: 24 Q. Would you tell the jury a little bit about yourself, 25 Barbara -- or Ms. Newsom? 00876 { 2:47:28pm} 01 A. Sure. I'm Barbara Newsom. I was born in Topeka, Kansas, 02 grew up in Wichita, and went to the University of Kansas. I 03 started teaching there and worked there for some years. 04 THE COURT: Ms. Newsom, if you will -- 05 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. 06 THE COURT: -- adjust that microphone so I can hear 07 you also. 08 THE WITNESS: Okay. Great. 09 A. Let's see. My current home is in Wisconsin and I have a 10 training and consulting business which is very similar to what 11 I did at the university. And I currently work quite a bit in 12 the Chicago area and the midwest area and specialize in 13 technical training for corporations and also for the federal 14 government. 15 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Do you have a familiarity with The 16 Urantia Book, Ms. Newsom? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And would you tell the jury when and where you became 19 familiar with The Urantia Book? 20 A. Yes. It was when I was a senior in high school. My 21 mother and father actually were introduced to The Urantia Book 22 by some common friends and acquaintances. My senior year in 23 high school, my sister had been killed in an accident and it 24 was actually given to us as a way of comforting us at that 25 time. So I was very pleased. I was getting ready to go off to 00877 { 2:47:28pm} 01 college and that's basically how I started reading the book, 02 was when I was studying a course in, let's say, philosophy or 03 political science or whatever the subject happened to be, I 04 would read whatever The Urantia Book had to say about it. My 05 parents and I were all reading the book together and that's 06 pretty much how I read through the book the first time. 07 Q. Did your referring to The Urantia Book on these topics 08 help you in your study? 09 A. It did me. I stayed in graduate school and really 10 seriously studied the book when I was working on my master's 11 degree. I just found it stimulating and I often compared some 12 of the viewpoints of the authors of the different papers with 13 some of the things that I was reading. 14 Q. Now, let's put this in some kind of time frame. You were 15 in Kansas; correct? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. When did you start school? 18 A. In 1965. 19 Q. And without going exactly into when you completed 20 undergrad, when did you finish with your schooling? 21 A. Well, my undergraduate in liberal arts and English was '69 22 and then I stayed until '73 and I worked at the university 23 until '74 for my master's degree. 24 Q. At some point, did you make contact with Urantia 25 Foundation? 00878 { 2:47:28pm} 01 A. I did. Again, my parents and I continued to study and we 02 were aware of the group in Chicago, and so I wanted to visit 03 the headquarters, and I did, and I started corresponding with 04 them in 1970, and then I went on a visit -- my first one was in 05 February of 1971 where I toured The Foundation offices and also 06 Urantia Brotherhood was there and met quite a few people on the 07 staff. 08 Q. Were you corresponding with anyone in particular? 09 A. Oh, yes. It was Emma Christensen. 10 Q. And I think we've heard testimony that she was somehow 11 involved in the early years? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How was she involved? 14 A. Christie began working with the groups that later became 15 known as The Contact Commission. 16 Q. So she was a contact commissioner? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And she was still alive at that point? 19 A. In 1971? 20 Q. Yes, ma'am. 21 A. Yes. She was 81 when I met her. 22 Q. When you went to Chicago, were you going there for any 23 particular purpose? 24 A. It was -- There was a program at the University of 25 Chicago that was related to my schooling, so I stayed over for 00879 { 2:47:28pm} 01 the weekend so that I could visit with her. 02 Q. And did you visit with her? 03 A. Yes. As I recall, we stayed -- I stayed a night or two, I 04 can't remember exactly now, but we visited and she was very 05 interested. We had a study group in Lawrence, Kansas, very 06 active, studying the papers, as many people do, and so we just 07 talked about all of that and what my goals were. I was 08 thinking of where I might go if I left the university, and just 09 visiting about things like that. 10 Q. And did you, after the trip to Chicago, did you return to 11 Kansas? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you remain in touch with Ms. Christensen? 14 A. Yes, I started coming to the summer study sessions that 15 were held at the 533 Diversey offices every summer. And from 16 '71 all the way through, I got active in the study of the book. 17 Q. At some point, did you actually move to Chicago? 18 A. Yes, I did. I did get to the point where I wanted to do 19 some other work. I started consulting, which is what I had 20 been doing at the university for businesses in industry and I 21 found that I could do that on my own. And during that time, I 22 was speaking with her about what I might do in Chicago. I had 23 offered to help with the volunteer work at The Foundation but 24 from Kansas I didn't know Chicago very well. I was getting to 25 know the place and getting acquainted and meeting a lot of the 00880 { 2:47:28pm} 01 people that were involved in those days in the organization and 02 they invited me to move to Chicago and work for Urantia 03 Brotherhood. So, in -- let's see -- it was July of 1975 that I 04 moved to Chicago on the staff of Urantia Brotherhood as 05 associate director. 06 Q. And how long did you work for Urantia Brotherhood? 07 A. I believe it was through February. MaryAnne Rally who is 08 one of the volunteers there had been having eye surgery and I 09 was really taking her place or doing a lot of work while she 10 was recovering, and she did recover, and I decided I didn't 11 want to make a career of it; I liked volunteering there but I 12 wanted to return to my consulting. I was thinking that if I 13 didn't return to it quickly, I might lose some of my clients, 14 so I was freelancing and that's what I did. In the meanwhile, 15 Urantia Foundation wanted me to continue working, volunteer 16 primarily, but also a couple of weeks were paid to help them 17 with some of their records and documents. 18 Q. And were you supervised by anyone in this? 19 A. That would be Ms. Christensen. 20 Q. Would it be fair to say that you and Ms. Christensen were 21 working together? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And what were you working together on? 24 A. This would be in the spring of 1976. During my time at 25 Urantia Brotherhood, she had actually trained some others of us 00881 { 2:47:28pm} 01 young people who were working in the office about the history 02 of the organization and, so, she had already had me working on 03 some of these records and documents and I learned that Urantia 04 Foundation needed to finalize the history that would be 05 published by Urantia Foundation of the early days. It was the 06 contact commissioner's records of those experiences from the 07 early 1900s up to the point at which the book was published. 08 Q. Now, there's been some discussion that these people took 09 oaths. How is that consistent? If The Forum took an oath and 10 The Contact Commission took an oath, how can they publish a 11 history? 12 A. Right. The oaths that were taken in the days before The 13 Urantia Book was published, there were actually several 14 points. While the papers were coming through, The Forum agreed 15 not to talk about the papers outside of their own group and not 16 to make notes and copies. And then the Contact Commissioners 17 had a different set of oaths. Theirs were not to reveal the 18 identity of the human subject. They were the only ones that 19 had any contact with the human subject or knew the identity of 20 the subject, so they were not to reveal that even to The Forum. 21 And The Contact Commission was not to reveal certain 22 details of transmissions -- that's how it was phrased -- to 23 The Forum or obviously outside of it. And they also abided by 24 it, not sharing the papers outside of the group. In addition 25 to that, they had those two restrictions. 00882 { 2:47:28pm} 01 Q. Let's clarify a couple of things. You said The Forum, 02 while the papers were coming. 03 A. Yes. 04 Q. Does that mean at some point their oath ceased to exist? 05 A. Yes. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to 07 this. I don't think there's a proper foundation for this. 08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If you'll give me a moment, I'll 09 get to -- 10 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, counselor. I'll 11 give you some leeway. 12 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Very briefly explain how -- or what 13 did that oath entail? 14 A. The written oath of secrecy that they all signed as 15 members of The Forum would expire when the book was published. 16 Now, in 1945, there were additional instructions about what to 17 do when the book was published. 18 Q. Now, we had some elderly ladies come in here the other 19 day. They weren't breaking any oaths, were they? 20 A. No. 21 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, my objection about the 22 prior testimony has not been -- 23 THE COURT: Sustained, counselor. 24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll withdraw. I apologize. 25 THE COURT: All right. The jury will be admonished 00883 { 2:47:28pm} 01 to disregard. 02 Go ahead. 03 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Let's get to the foundation for 04 your knowledge. 05 A. Okay. 06 Q. You said you were creating the history; correct? 07 A. I'm sorry? 08 Q. You said you were creating the history, you and Christie? 09 A. Yes. 10 Q. And that was to be published? 11 A. Yes; however, I would put it this way: we were organizing 12 the materials that had already been collected over the years by 13 the Contact Commission. In other words, from the 1900s to the 14 time Christie was active in 1922, there were records of that 15 earlier period which had been transferred to Christie. At that 16 point, all of the other Contact Commissioners had died and had 17 left her these records. So we weren't creating those, but we 18 were creating the history that was to be published upon her 19 death. Her instruction was to finalize the history and to 20 publish it upon her death. The Foundation, Urantia Foundation, 21 would publish it upon her death. 22 Q. You say, "These records." What was included within these 23 records? 24 A. There were -- I would call them the historical files or 25 records of The Contact Commission which would include any of 00884 { 2:47:28pm} 01 their transmissions that gave them instructions as to how to 02 proceed or what to do. And, in addition to that, Dr. Sadler 03 had asked all of The Forum to write letters to him. He had 04 written a letter out to everyone saying, "What should we put in 05 our history? We ought to publish this history at a certain 06 point and we would like to know what you would like us to share 07 as your experiences." So, there were files from many, many 08 Forum members, and letters, actually more than one or two, from 09 some of the individuals. I would say a whole file drawer of 10 those letters. And then we had the written narratives from the 11 Contact Commissioners' notes and records of activities which 12 were more in the form of a journal. 13 We then were preparing a narrative. We were collecting 14 all the materials, organizing it, putting headings, titles and 15 outlines, that sort of thing, together. 16 Q. Was this journal you mentioned, whose journal was it? 17 A. The journal that we used for the early years belonged to 18 Dr. Sadler. From the 1900s to the point where The Urantia Book 19 project began, Dr. Sadler kept a journal of important events 20 and his reflections and experiences. 21 Q. Describe the journal to the jury, please. 22 A. The journal was written on different types of 23 paper because it came from different -- 24 MR. ABOWITZ: Excuse me, Your Honor. May we approach 25 the bench? 00885 { 2:47:28pm} 01 THE COURT: Sure. 02 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 03 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 04 MR. ABOWITZ: Unless it's in a different form and I 05 don't recognize it, we were never given access to this journal 06 and we asked for everything they had. 07 THE COURT: What are you attempting to establish 08 here, Peter? 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, she's going to testify 10 as to the contents of that journal. 11 THE COURT: Pardon? 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: She's going to testify as to the 13 contents of that journal. 14 THE COURT: What journal is it? Are you talking 15 about the history? 16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No. It's Dr. Sadler's original 17 handwritten documents. 18 MR. PLOURDE: Where is it? 19 THE COURT: Have you produced it to them? 20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: (COUNSEL SHAKES HEAD) 21 THE COURT: You're going to let her testify as to the 22 content of it? 23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I hope to. I haven't produced it 24 for a very specific reason. It doesn't exist. 25 THE COURT: Huh? 00886 { 2:47:28pm} 01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It doesn't exist any more. Rule 02 1004, Your Honor, says when an original document has been lost 03 due to no fault of the party, that someone who is familiar with 04 the contents can testify to the contents. It's called 05 secondary evidence of an original document. I can pull up the 06 rule for you and we've got plenty of cases for you. He 07 questioned Richard Keeler about this and made an inference to 08 the jury that the trustees destroyed these original -- 09 MR. ABOWITZ: They have. 10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: -- written histories. 11 They have not and she's going to testify to that. 12 THE COURT: All right. I'll overrule the objection. 13 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel? 14 I'm going to object to this entire line of testimony and I 15 don't want to get on my feet with respect to every question. 16 May I have a continuing objection -- 17 THE COURT: You can have a continuing objection. 18 MR. ABOWITZ: -- on any testimony with respect to 19 what's in these papers that no longer exist that we asked for 20 that we didn't get? 21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We don't have them. How can we -- 22 THE COURT: All he wants is a continuing objection. 23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Sure. 24 THE COURT: You'll have it. 25 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 00887 { 2:47:28pm} 01 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 02 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) I think you were about to describe 03 the journals. 04 A. Yes. 05 Q. Let's not talk about what was in them just yet. Let's 06 just describe them. 07 A. Okay. The papers came from different decades and they had 08 been collected first in folders, and they were written 09 primarily on notebook paper or tablet paper. There were a 10 couple of tablet pads when we started that were still intact, 11 and we were organizing those actually chronologically but some 12 of them were not dated; they were more essays or a narrative 13 that Dr. Sadler had written on a particular subject, so those 14 were undated. But we had dated and undated materials and we 15 put those into binders with a clip so that they could be stored 16 a little more securely and would be part of the archives of 17 Urantia Foundation. They were intended -- all of the materials 18 I worked with, including Dr. Sadler's journal, were intended as 19 archival records which would be the property of Urantia 20 Foundation upon the death of the last Contact Commissioner. 21 Q. Now, how familiar did you become with these journals of 22 Dr. Sadler? 23 A. Oh. Well, because they were the basis of the narrative 24 that we were writing and he had written some of the narratives 25 himself as well, we were using them all the time on a regular 00888 { 2:47:28pm} 01 basis, on a daily basis, and we wanted to check and double 02 check what would be published with what he had done. So, for a 03 period of months, we were working with it every day. 04 Now, earlier I had seen or read parts of this in the 05 earlier years when I was visiting Christie, as she often did; 06 she viewed herself as training young people to continue with 07 the volunteer work and encouraged us to learn as much as we 08 could about these things. But I didn't take any notes during 09 that period. She would read them, I would read them at my 10 leisure. This was more of an effort to, as we said, finalize 11 the history. She was 80 -- what would that be -- 86 at this 12 time. 13 Q. Did there come a point when you learned that these 14 documents were lost? 15 A. Yes. She was still a vice president of Urantia 16 Brotherhood even though she was a trustee emeritus for Urantia 17 Foundation, and at one of our monthly executive committee 18 meetings in the fall of 1979 she announced to the entire 19 executive committee that her historical records had 20 disappeared. 21 Q. Now, let's set the stage for the jury here. Where were 22 these records kept? 23 A. This particular collection, which we had finished in May 24 of 1976 for publication, it was ready. It was just waiting for 25 her to pass on. They were kept in a reading room on the third 00889 { 2:47:28pm} 01 floor of The Foundation building which was the residence, the 02 private residence where she lived for many years. And to enter 03 the reading room, one had to walk through her bedroom from the 04 front door to the back door leading out onto the reading room 05 which is on the back of the building. And it was in a floor 06 cabinet locked file drawer cabinet -- four-drawer file cabinet 07 is what I mean to say. And I never had a key; only she had the 08 key, as far as I knew. 09 Q. Well, were you -- 10 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may we approach the bench? 11 THE COURT: Sure. 12 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 13 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 14 MR. ABOWITZ: That testimony has just established 15 that the control of the documents was within The Foundation 16 and -- 17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: The rule states that it has to 18 have destroyed them in a non-negligent manner. They would have 19 had to have destroyed them for a reason, not misplaced them, 20 not lost them, not burned them by mistake. They have to do -- 21 take an active step in destroying them for a particular 22 purpose. 23 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, we were deprived of the 24 opportunity of discovery on this issue. 25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, let's set the stage 00890 { 2:47:28pm} 01 here. They have known about her. She's been on the witness 02 list. I found out about this last Friday. That's the first 03 I've heard of it. I didn't talk to her until yesterday. 04 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Did you alert them 05 to this problem at all last Friday? 06 MR. ABOWITZ: No, not at all. 07 THE COURT: Not at all. Tell me again, why are 08 you -- what are you attempting to establish that's relevant? 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, this is material -- 10 this is the most material and probative evidence we have. His 11 notes go into specificity, go into specificity about the 12 subject. They go into specificity of precise questions that 13 were asked, and they go into specificity -- 14 THE COURT: Give me an example. 15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Well, I think she knows the 16 questions better than I do. His notes say verbatim that the 17 subject knew about it, he knew that they were going to publish, 18 and it was all right. 19 THE COURT: And this is in a document that's 20 destroyed? 21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It's destroyed. 22 THE COURT: Nobody in this lawsuit knew anything 23 about it? 24 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I knew nothing about it. The 25 Urantia Foundation didn't even know anything about it. She 00891 { 2:47:28pm} 01 will testify she never told anybody. 02 MR. ABOWITZ: Judge, that's preposterous. That's the 03 heart, the gravamen of this case. We didn't -- 04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, -- 05 THE COURT: Just a minute. Just a minute. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: We were deprived of the opportunity to 07 discover all these issues about why they were gone. That's 08 preposterous. 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: How was he deprived, Your Honor? 10 He could have taken her deposition. We didn't. 11 THE COURT: All right. Now, give me your 1404 -- 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 1004. Here, I'll give you some 13 cases. 14 THE COURT: This one right here? 15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes, Your Honor, by that blue tab. 16 THE COURT: Give me the rule that you're relying on, 17 counsel. 18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: The Federal Rules, I don't think 19 we have that. 20 Your Honor, read this one. Read the two highlighted ones. 21 Rule 1004. 22 MR. PLOURDE: Judge, number one, the fact of whether 23 or not they were lost and the circumstances that they were lost 24 under is hearsay. All she knows is what Emma Christensen told 25 her how they were lost. So, they're saying, "Well, you have to 00892 { 2:47:28pm} 01 prove that they were lost or destroyed in bad faith," and we're 02 not permitted to cross-examine. The only person that knows 03 about that because what she is testifying to -- 04 THE COURT: Christensen is not going to be a witness? 05 MR. ABOWITZ: She's deceased. 06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, she'll testify to the 07 search that was undertaken that she participated in. 08 THE COURT: Pardon? 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: She'll testify to the search that 10 was undertaken, that she participated in it. 11 THE COURT: Here's what you're doing here: you're 12 attempting to establish by inadmissible hearsay as to how this 13 was destroyed, aren't you, counselor, since she doesn't have 14 any personal knowledge of it herself? 15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I've got a case that 16 says that that is not inadmissible hearsay to describe how the 17 documents were lost. 18 THE COURT: Well, she doesn't have any personal 19 knowledge of how they were lost. The only thing she knows is 20 -- in other words, you're saying she's like an expert, that she 21 can rely upon hearsay to establish how the documents were lost? 22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, she engaged in a 23 search for the documents which shows no bad faith. The 24 documents are not around any more, they're not in Urantia 25 Foundation, and -- 00893 { 2:47:28pm} 01 THE COURT: Yeah, and we don't know what happened to 02 them except what somebody told her -- 03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I've got a case who says the 04 burden is on them. 05 THE COURT: -- who is not hear in court and it's 06 being offered to prove the truth. Isn't that classic hearsay 07 inadmissible? 08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, burden on the 09 objecting party. 10 MR. ABOWITZ: How are we going to satisfy the burden? 11 THE COURT: Wait just a minute. 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: That's the wrong case, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: This is a business records exception. 14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yeah, I gave you the wrong one, 15 Judge. 16 MR. ABOWITZ: The point I made earlier is we've been 17 deprived of the opportunity to do discovery on this. If we had 18 known this was an issue, -- 19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Here's one. Here, Your Honor. 20 Let me take that note off. 21 Read the blue tabs. 22 That's just our note, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Okay. She is listed -- or 24 testifying altogether different from this. They weren't put on 25 any kind of a notice as to what she was going -- that she was 00894 { 2:47:28pm} 01 going to be testifying to this under any circumstances. They 02 had no chance to discover anything about this issue. But, more 03 importantly, she is attempting to testify to what something 04 told her -- someone told her for the -- and that's being 05 offered for the truth of that, and consequently then going into 06 the details of a document that is now destroyed based upon what 07 someone told her. I just think we better stay away from this, 08 counselor. 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I make -- May I put my 10 objection on the record? 11 THE COURT: Sure. 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: And may I say that this case, 13 Cross v. U.S, which is a Tenth Circuit case, says that she can 14 testify, okay? And if you will turn to the blue tabs, -- 15 THE COURT: Are you talking about the highlighted 16 portion or something? 17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: The highlighted portion. 18 THE COURT: "Hierarchy of secondary evidence"? 19 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Let me see. 20 THE COURT: That doesn't help me any, counselor. 21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I have a moment, Your Honor? 22 THE COURT: Yes. 23 MR. SCHOENTHALER: This is a very important piece of 24 evidence. 25 We didn't sandbag, Your Honor. We didn't know. I didn't 00895 { 2:47:28pm} 01 talk to her until last night. 02 THE COURT: I understand that, but it's a late- 03 developing issue and I just don't think -- it's something that 04 may be very important but I don't think it ought to be brought 05 in at this point where they've had no opportunity -- 06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, right there. I will 07 be glad to give them an hour break, two-hour break to cross- 08 examine her. She's just going to testify as to her 09 recollection. 10 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the 11 objection at this point. Let's stay away from it, counselor. 12 And you have an exception, of course, to the Court's ruling and 13 you can make a more adequate offer and record during the next 14 recess, counselor. 15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Am I not permitted to get into the 16 contents of the documents at all? 17 THE COURT: Not at all, not from her. We don't have 18 the document and we don't have any basis for allowing her to 19 testify as to what she saw or heard in a document that's not -- 20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: If I may, I'll take my exception, 21 but I'd like counsel for the Michael Foundation and Harry 22 McMullan to put what their objection is on the record. 23 THE COURT: Well, they're not required to. They've 24 objected and I've sustained the objection, counselor. 25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I just want to know what their 00896 { 2:47:28pm} 01 basis was, for appeal. 02 THE COURT: The basis of my ruling is that I have 03 sustained the objection. 04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: All right. 05 THE COURT: Now, if you think I'm obligated to sit 06 here and argue with you and explain the Court's ruling -- 07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No, you're certainly not. 08 THE COURT: The objection is sustained, counselor. 09 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 10 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I apologize. May we 12 approach one last time? 13 THE COURT: Sure. 14 Last time? You promise, counselor? 15 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 16 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I wasn't going to even 18 have her testify to this because they were not provided with 19 this information -- 20 Murray, you might want to pull your back in. 21 -- because they were not provided with this information 22 because we got it very recently, but she, right after she found 23 out they were lost, she wrote down, to the best of her 24 recollection, 30 pages in pencil. She's got it with her. I'm 25 not trying to seek the introduction of that because I know they 00897 { 2:47:28pm} 01 did not receive that but we are receiving this information 02 about the same time. Now, I can refresh her recollection with 03 that. 04 THE COURT: No. Now, what you can do, if you want 05 to, during a recess, you can offer her testimony with regard to 06 that for the record, but I'm sustaining the objection. 07 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 08 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, at this time I have no 10 more questions. 11 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any cross-examination? 12 MR. ABOWITZ: I have none. 13 THE COURT: You may step down, and you'll be excused. 14 (WITNESS EXCUSED) 15 THE COURT: Call your next witness, please, counsel. 16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, one moment. 17 I'll call Ann Garner. 18 THE COURT: Come right up and raise your right hand 19 and be sworn, please. 20 (WITNESS SWORN) 21 ANN GARNER, 22 being first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, 23 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: 24 THE COURT: Would you please be seated right here and 25 speak into that microphone and I'll ask you to state your full 00898 { 2:48:55pm} 01 name and spell your last name, please. 02 THE WITNESS: Ann Garner, G-A-R-N-E-R. 03 DIRECT EXAMINATION 04 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER: 05 Q. Ms. Garner, please introduce yourself to the jury. 06 THE COURT: She just did. 07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Oh. Thank you. 08 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you tell the jurors a little 09 bit about yourself. 10 A. I live in Arlington, Texas, and I'm married and have three 11 children. They're 24, 18 and 16. My husband and I have lived 12 in Arlington 22 years. And I teach computer software at the 13 University of Texas at Arlington. 14 Q. Are you familiar with The Urantia Book? 15 A. Yes, I am 16 Q. Have you ever been involved with any organizations of 17 persons who read The Urantia Book? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Would you tell the jury a little bit about your 20 involvement in those organizations. 21 A. I started reading The Urantia Book in about '80 and I 22 became, you might say, casually involved with study groups, and 23 at that time it was The Brotherhood Foundation and conferences 24 around mostly Oklahoma and Texas, conferences. Then in '91, I 25 became more involved on a national level and became part of 00899 { 2:50:35pm} 01 what is called the Domestic Extension Committee for outreach, 02 to let people know about the book, and also I was responsible 03 for facilitating area coordinators, people just to facilitate 04 study groups. 05 Then I was elected to the general council in 1994 and I 06 was active -- actively participated. I was elected until the 07 year 2000 but our daughters, when they became teen-agers and my 08 husband had to start traveling again, I resigned because I felt 09 like I needed to be home with the girls. 10 Q. Did you ever become -- Did your involvement stay 11 consistent or did you become more or less involved? 12 A. Well, I became more involved with the formal organization, 13 as far as that, in '91. 14 Q. What organization is that? 15 A. Known as The Fellowship. 16 Q. Now, we've heard, I think, just to put this in 17 perspective, we've heard about The Urantia Foundation and we've 18 heard about Urantia Brotherhood. 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. And Urantia Fellowship -- is Urantia Brotherhood with a 21 different name; is that correct? 22 A. Right, yes. The group of people, yes, that used to be The 23 Brotherhood. 24 Q. What did you do at the Fellowship? What was your 25 position? 00900 { 2:52:10pm} 01 A. Well, like I said, before I became a member of the general 02 council, I was on what is called the Domestic Extension 03 Committee and I was the facilitator of 97 area coordinators in 04 North America. 05 Q. What does the Domestic Extension Committee do? 06 A. Just to network readers as far as outreach, facilitating 07 study groups, letting them know what each group is doing, 08 mainly study groups and things like that, and just keeping it 09 coordinated. 10 Q. And did you at some point, while continuing to be 11 involved, take a different position with The Fellowship? 12 A. Yes. 13 And I want to go back to the Domestic Extension. I 14 traveled all around the United States once or twice a month to 15 different settings to people who were interested. I would 16 introduce the book, if they were interested, and this ended up 17 being thousands of people, one-on-one and in groups, introduce 18 them to the concepts. And then, like I said, in '94 I was 19 elected to the general council of the Fellowship. 20 Q. And what is the general council? 21 A. That's 36 people from different parts of the world that 22 local -- that they are representatives, you might say, elected, 23 we were elected at what we call a TDA conclave, a triennial; it 24 meets every three years. It's an elected position to sit 25 together and facilitate, again, the study groups, summer 00901 { 2:54:04pm} 01 sessions, each summer somewhere in the United States, and we 02 facilitated every three years an international gathering. 03 Q. And was there a group of persons in a higher position than 04 the general council? 05 A. Higher? Well, each committee -- each committee, there was 06 a chairperson and each of those chair people made up what is 07 called the executive committee. And I would observe those 08 meetings. Although I wasn't a member of the executive 09 committee, I observed them. 10 Q. Now, your work with The Fellowship, what years did that 11 encompass? 12 A. On a national level? '91 to '97 when I had to resign 13 because of the children. 14 Q. Now, are you familiar with a case involving Urantia 15 Foundation and Kristen Maaherra? 16 A. Yes, I'm familiar with it. I'm not overly familiar with 17 it. 18 Q. I'm interested in how that case -- how that case was -- 19 how The Fellowship was involved in that case. Not with any 20 legal terms. Was The Fellowship a party to that case? 21 A. No. Well, for several years it was firmly decided that, 22 no, that that was a personal reader and at the council level -- 23 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This 24 is not responsive to the question. 25 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. 00902 { 2:55:39pm} 01 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 02 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) You can continue your answer or I 03 can re-ask the question. 04 A. Yes, sir. 05 Q. Which would you like? 06 A. Ask it again, please. 07 Q. Well, let's start again. Was The Fellowship a party to 08 that case? Was The Fellowship a plaintiff or defendant in that 09 case? 10 A. No, no, no. No, because at the council meetings, if it 11 was brought up, which it was at times, it was statements were 12 made we are not to get involved with this because that's an 13 individual reader and we're here to facilitate the studying of 14 these. 15 Q. How -- Were there any discussions? You said you attended 16 executive committee member meetings. 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. Did you also attend general council meetings? 19 A. Yes. And prior to becoming a general councilor, I did -- 20 I sat and observed from '91 to '94. 21 Q. Do you recall any discussions about possibly getting 22 involved in the litigation? 23 A. Yes, but I can only be definite about some times that I 24 was sitting on the council and I have a clear -- you know, 25 before I was on the council, I cannot tell you absolutely. 00903 { 2:56:59pm} 01 Q. Well, let's start with this: How did The Fellowship, in 02 general, feel about getting involved? 03 A. The consensus until -- until a certain time -- one 04 particular meeting, the consensus was always we're not to do 05 that, that that's not what we're about. We're about just 06 keeping the study groups connected. 07 Q. And was there one particular meeting where that consensus 08 changed? 09 A. Well, that's when the vote changed as far as there was -- 10 -- January, there was a meeting in San Francisco that would 11 have been 1996, January of '96, and it was proposed what was 12 being called an amicus brief. At the time I really wasn't 13 familiar with that term, but then we were assured that -- and 14 it was a real struggle because it was -- I think that's called 15 friend of the court, I think. I was not real familiar with 16 that at that time. But it was a real struggle with the council 17 because we kept being told that this does not directly involve 18 us. 19 Q. Now, let's just get the time. It was January of '96. Do 20 you know if that was before or after the book had been put into 21 the public domain by the district court? 22 A. The book was put in the public domain by the district 23 court in January of '95. So this was January of '96. Is that 24 what you're asking me, in the public domain? 25 Q. Yes, that's what I'm asking. 00904 { 2:59:03pm} 01 So, at this point The Urantia Foundation had lost on the 02 lower level, the lower court, and were they appealing, do you 03 know? 04 A. Yes. 05 Q. And there was discussion regarding filing an amicus brief 06 with the appellate court? 07 A. Right. 08 Q. Well, tell the jury a little bit about that discussion at 09 that meeting. 10 A. That meeting? It was the hardest meeting I've ever 11 attended because we're just a group of people that try to 12 always come out with a consensus, you know, where everybody 13 comes to an agreement, try to, and it was discussed at length 14 and it was brought forward by Harry McMullan. I remember -- in 15 fact, I know in the minutes I'm stated -- I took exception to 16 it. I was afraid that it was going to because had he been out 17 amongst the readers so much, you know, around the country, the 18 world, most in fact, but of the country, I was afraid it was 19 going to cause a pulling. 20 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I kind of lost sight of 21 where we're going. 22 THE COURT: I have too. I'm having some difficulty. 23 Restate your question. And proceed on a question-and-answer 24 basis rather than recitation. 25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes, Your Honor. 00905 { 3:00:26pm} 01 THE WITNESS: Okay. 02 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) At that Fellowship meeting, was 03 there a discussion regarding filing an amicus brief with the 04 court of appeals? 05 A. Yes, there was, and there was a lot of tension with it. 06 Q. Was there anybody in particular who was vigorously behind 07 filing an amicus brief with the appellate court? 08 A. Yes, sir. 09 Q. And who was that person? 10 A. Harry McMullan. 11 Q. Did you speak with Harry McMullan about this? 12 A. Well, I did at the council level. I do not recall that 13 day having any kind of personal interaction but I was vocal at 14 the council level. 15 Q. Now, do you recall any earlier meetings, Fellowship 16 meetings, that you attended in which Mr. McMullan had 17 emphasized that since the book was now in the public domain, 18 that The Fellowship should publish their own book? 19 A. Yes, sir, it began to be discussed at the council level. 20 Q. And when was that? 21 A. Well, we had an emergency meeting after January -- after 22 the copyright was relinquished, after that summary judgment, we 23 had an emergency meeting in Chicago, February of '95. 24 Q. And did Mr. McMullan take the position on whether The 25 Fellowship should be publishing a Urantia Book? 00906 { 3:01:52pm} 01 A. Yes. 02 Q. And what was that position? 03 A. That, in fact, we should. In fact, there was already in 04 place text in a computer ready to go. 05 Q. And did Mr. McMullan have anything to do with that text 06 being in place? 07 A. I cannot say that I know -- at that time, I don't know. I 08 know where it was being done. I did not know until that 09 night. I do remember talking to Harry about my concerns about 10 the way it was being done, having been in publishing. 11 Q. What did Harry tell you? What did Mr. McMullan tell you? 12 Excuse me. 13 A. At first he said, "It looks good, it's okay," and then 14 later on it was actually redone, put in a book. 15 Q. Now, after this time, after these two meetings, have you 16 had any conversations with Mr. McMullan regarding his feelings 17 towards any of the trustees on Urantia Foundation? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. Who? 20 A. Sir? 21 Q. Who did you -- When you spoke with Mr. McMullan, who did 22 he make a comment about? 23 A. Well, I was talking -- I had decided on my own to call 24 Richard Keeler, who I did not know that well, because I was 25 beginning to be concerned because it was causing problems with 00907 { 3:03:22pm} 01 the readership, you know, and I thought I need to look at other 02 viewpoints, and I called Mr. Richard Keeler and he returned my 03 call and I began to see another viewpoint, the validity of 04 indeed having the copyright, and so I made a call to Harry 05 McMullan at that time and also called Gard Jameson and Mo 06 Seigel and was just giving my reflections about, "You know, we 07 need to talk this over. Why can't we just all come -- we're 08 talking about just keeping the book out there. It's out there. 09 Why fill a void that doesn't exist?" 10 THE WITNESS: Could I have some water, please? 11 THE COURT: Sure. Be careful with the lid. 12 THE WITNESS: Sir? 13 THE COURT: Be careful with the lid. 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, you told me. I guess you just take 15 that off. 16 A. So I called Harry McMullan and Gard and Mo and expressed 17 my concerns that, "Why don't we just talk, let's talk. Let's 18 try to find a way to meet. Again, the book is on the shelves 19 and out there for people that want to read it." And Gard and 20 Mo, they said, "You're right. Let's talk about it." I got a 21 different type of response from Harry. It was -- and I had 22 known Harry a long time. I've known him since '83 or '84, 23 something like that, and all the time that I knew Harry before, 24 about 1991, even now I would hope we're very -- I consider him 25 a very good friend. And as long as we were talking about some 00908 { 3:05:22pm} 01 other subject, I enjoy his humor, you know. But, boy, when 02 this subject came up, it was just a shift. He really -- at one 03 point he just kept saying, "No, no, no, you just don't 04 understand. The Foundation, they're wrong, they're wrong, 05 they're wrong." I said, "Why don't we just talk things over? 06 Why don't you call Richard? Why don't you just call him up?" 07 And he said, "No, no." 08 I will tell you that at one point he used the term that he 09 would destroy Richard and it really upset me. It really upset 10 me at that time. I said, "Harry, you really don't mean that. 11 You really don't mean that." So that was it. 12 Did I answer you? 13 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Did you ever observe Mr. McMullan's 14 attitude towards Mo Seigel and Gard Jameson, who are trustees 15 of The Urantia Foundation? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Would you tell the jury what you observed. 18 A. Well, this is a different time because this was after I 19 received a copy of -- 20 THE WITNESS: Can I pick this up? 21 THE COURT: Sure. 22 A. I received a copy of this book in the mail with a note in 23 it, and the note is something -- 24 THE COURT: Let the record reflect that it is Jesus 25 As Now Revealed, the book that she's referring to. 00909 { 3:06:48pm} 01 THE WITNESS: Jesus - A New Revelation. 02 I just didn't expect it, that image there. Inside, it 03 said something like -- it was a question mark because it had 04 something like, "Do you approve?" or "Hope you approve." I 05 should have looked at the note before I left home. I kept 06 looking at it and reflecting on it and it bothered me. It 07 really bothered me. It didn't make -- first of all, it was 08 outside of the law because by now the copyright was valid 09 again, and I think that happened in '97 and I received this in 10 '99. It was toward the end, I believe, of '99. 11 So I didn't know what to do because it really upset me 12 because, again, knowing so many readers one on one, that I 13 decided that the best thing to do would be to talk to Harry 14 privately about it first and to try to understand his 15 viewpoint. But I had no opportunity to do that. I was not 16 traveling at all and he lives in Oklahoma and I live in Texas. 17 Well, then the general council had a meeting in Dallas of 18 February 6th, 2000, and I decided to attend that meeting, just 19 toward the end Sunday, and after the meeting I walked around 20 the table because I had been thinking, "Well, if I have a 21 chance, I'd like to talk to Harry privately to see if I can 22 understand why he's doing this." I walked around the table and 23 asked him if we could talk, and we did, and we sat together 24 over to the side privately. He asked me -- or I said, "Harry, 25 you asked in the note if I approved. It's not my place to 00910 { 3:08:48pm} 01 approve or not approve. I can just tell you this: I do not 02 agree. I do not agree with this. It doesn't line up with what 03 I think is proper for this particular text." We talked at 04 length about that and I said -- you asked me specifically if he 05 mentioned Gard or Mo? 06 Q. (COUNSEL NODS HEAD) 07 A. During that conversation, again, at one point I can 08 remember saying, "You know, Harry, I keep getting the feeling 09 that it's almost like the way you refer to The Foundation, it's 10 like it's this evil empire hovering. I don't understand. 11 Let's put names, let's put faces to this entity. We're talking 12 about specifically people you and I have known a long time: 13 Gard and Mo. We're talking about our brothers. We're talking 14 about two people that we have known a long time that are doing 15 the best job they can and I'm really satisfied. They're out 16 there, they're on the shelves for those that want to read it." 17 At that point, he said, "They're not my brothers anymore. 18 They're not my brothers anymore." And, again, that really 19 hurt, you know, having known all of them for so long. 20 Q. Did Mr. McMullan say anything else in that conversation 21 regarding trustees of Urantia Foundation or Urantia Foundation 22 itself? 23 A. He used the terminology again about destroy, put an end to 24 it, and I asked him, I was just -- I couldn't believe it. I 25 just couldn't believe it because I've known Harry a long time. 00911 { 3:10:41pm} 01 I talked about the law, you know, abiding by the law, and 02 somehow he just seemed to think that that didn't matter. 03 I also talked about that it just didn't make sense -- 04 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object to 05 that. 06 THE COURT: Sustained. 07 MR. ABOWITZ: And move it be stricken. 08 THE COURT: We need to proceed on a 09 question-and-answer basis. 10 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Did Mr. McMullan describe The 11 Urantia Foundation as being evil? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did Mr. McMullan -- 14 A. And, again, it was more like -- yes, sir. 15 Q. Did Mr. McMullan say that he would use all his wealth to 16 destroy Urantia Foundation? 17 MR. ABOWITZ: Object, Your Honor, as leading. 18 THE COURT: Sustained. That's a leading question, 19 counselor. 20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll withdraw it. 21 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Did Mr. McMullan say anything else 22 in that conversation about the trustees of Urantia Foundation 23 or Urantia Foundation itself? 24 A. I was trying to remember the exact words. It's hard to 25 remember the exact words because I was so startled but 00912 { 3:11:38pm} 01 something to the effect of, "I'll do whatever it takes. I'll 02 use whatever means." And -- okay. 03 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No further questions, Your Honor. 04 THE COURT: Cross? 05 CROSS-EXAMINATION 06 BY MR. ABOWITZ: 07 Q. Ms. Garner, as I understand what you were saying, you were 08 in a leadership position in The Fellowship organization? 09 A. Yes, sir, as far as -- yes, sir. We never thought of 10 ourselves as being in charge of other people, but in that 11 terminology, yes, sir. 12 Q. You would agree with that? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. And at the time that the Maaherra decision came down from 15 the district court and put the book, The Urantia Book, in the 16 public domain, there was, you told us, a discussion at the 17 leadership level of the Fellowship on whether to publish 18 The Urantia Book; correct? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. And is it an accurate statement that you were dead set 21 against that? 22 A. Dead set against -- 23 Q. Publishing The Urantia Book Fellowship. 24 A. While the copyright was invalid? 25 Q. Yes. 00913 { 3:13:01pm} 01 A. No, sir. At that time it was still in question. I was 02 part of the group, that we made -- no, sir, I would not say I 03 was against it at that time. 04 Q. How would you put it? 05 A. In that emergency meeting, when the book was in -- outside 06 of the copyright domain, I did vote with others that, yes, 07 we'll proceed. But I am on the record, sir, in the minutes as 08 requesting that, "Please, let's not do this until the courts 09 have decided." I am on record with that. 10 Q. So you were against it until it was sorted out by the 11 courts? 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I think he's 13 mischaracterizing the testimony. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question, 15 if you can. 16 A. Was I -- I was against it? 17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Yeah. 18 A. Until -- and I expressed my concerns, but the way this 19 particular group functions, once the vote is taken, again, the 20 working consensus, I actually, you know, was -- I said, "Okay, 21 if this is what the group has decided, we'll move forward." 22 Q. But until that -- before that happened, you took the 23 individual position that you were not in favor of the 24 publication of The Urantia Book? 25 A. At that time, yes, sir. 00914 { 3:14:27pm} 01 Q. All right. 02 A. I wanted to wait -- 03 Q. Could you go through the books in front of you and show 04 the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what book was published by 05 The Fellowship or printed by The Fellowship? 06 A. By The Fellowship? 07 Q. Yes, ma'am. 08 A. Oh, this one. This one (INDICATING). 09 Q. And that's the publication that there was the emergency 10 meeting about? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And notwithstanding your individual position, the group 13 voted to publish it -- to print it and distribute it; right? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. And The Fellowship also voted as a group to file this 16 amicus brief with the Court in Maaherra; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. Yes. I've already -- well -- 18 Q. And this text that was in place in 1995 that you said 19 would not work and had to be redone, do you recall it was not 20 Mr. McMullan's text but that of John Hay and Merritt Horn? 21 A. I said that earlier, that I did not. 22 Q. So, that was not Mr. McMullan's text that had to be 23 redone? 24 A. I said that earlier. 25 Q. Is that right? 00915 { 3:15:51pm} 01 A. Yes, sir. 02 Q. All right. 03 MR. ABOWITZ: Now, if I may, Your Honor, we've agreed 04 that this is an exhibit that was not objected to. If I just 05 may show the witness this. This is a letter from Harry 06 McMullan to Gard Jameson addressed as "Gard." If I may just 07 put it up on the viewer here. 08 A. Where's it going to be? 09 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Right behind you. 10 MR. ABOWITZ: This is Urantia Foundation 23. Well, 11 maybe we do have it. 12 A. What is the date of this? 13 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Hold on. Hold on. 14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, can we ask a 15 foundation before he puts it up? 16 THE COURT: Yes. Don't demonstrate it. Is it 17 admitted to or not objected to? 18 MR. ABOWITZ: It's been not objected to. We've 19 agreed to admit it. 20 THE COURT: Is it offered? 21 MR. ABOWITZ: It has not been offered to date. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to offer it? 23 MR. ABOWITZ: We'd offer exhibit 23. 24 THE COURT: It's admitted if not objected to. Go 25 ahead and display it now. 00916 { 3:17:03pm} 01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I would still like it 02 presented to her so she can see if she recognizes it. I would 03 like it presented to her, if the Court agrees, to see if she 04 recognizes it. 05 THE COURT: Well, he can display it. It's admitted. 06 He can display it, whether she can identify it or not. 07 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Here, let me do it this way. 08 A. I may need some reading glasses. 09 Q. Would these help? 10 A. Are they two-point? 11 Q. I don't know. Does that work? 12 A. No, they're too strong. 13 Q. We'll have to share them, maybe. 14 A. Maybe I can -- okay. 15 Q. I've just got one question about that. 16 Wait. We may have a solution here. 17 MR. ABOWITZ: May I, Judge? 18 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Does that help? 19 A. I need some 1.25 glasses. 20 Q. Does that help, the magnifying glass? 21 A. I think I'll be okay. 22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This is an April 7th, 1998 letter from 23 Harry McMullan to Gard Jameson. I'd ask you to concentrate 24 your attention on this paragraph, please. 25 A. "You and I," that one? 00917 { 3:18:54pm} 01 Q. Yes. Would you read it for the jury, please? 02 A. Sir? 03 Q. Would you please read it? 04 A. "You and I will always get along on a personal basis 05 because we love and respect each other but it does not follow 06 that I should submit to the views of your adopted organization 07 which I view as having done incalculable harm to the worldwide 08 community of believers in the progress of the revelation 09 anymore than what you should submit to what I believe." 10 Q. Ma'am, isn't that the essence of what Mr. McMullan told 11 you about his relationship with Mr. Keeler, Mr. Jameson, and 12 Mr. Seigel? 13 A. That's not what I felt at the time. 14 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have. Thank you. 15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER: 17 Q. Do you see five lines down, "And so long"? 18 A. Two, four, five. Yes. 19 Q. Would you read that for us, please. 20 A. "And so long as The Foundation continues to persecute 21 believers for disseminating the revelation as they see fit, I 22 view collaboration with it in precisely those terms - 23 spiritually repugnant, unholy and untruthful." 24 Q. Would you go to the last paragraph, second page. Would 25 you read that paragraph up until the last sentence. 00918 { 3:21:00pm} 01 A. "With respect to your desire that I be patient and of good 02 will, please be assured that my good will toward you is 03 boundless. But just in case I haven't made myself perfectly 04 clear, I am unilaterally antagonistic toward Urantia Foundation 05 so long as it views its mission in terms of absolute control of 06 the revelation no matter how many translations it might be 07 producing or other" -- is that "nifty" or "nitty?" -- "nifty 08 projects it might be engaged in. If you and your fellow 09 trustees have the moral courage to change that approach, then 10 anything is possible." 11 Q. And the last sentence, please? 12 A. "As you have heard me say before, there is nothing 13 The Foundation does which it could not do better without the 14 copyright and trademarks." 15 Q. Do you think that The Urantia Foundation is in absolute 16 control, as Mr. McMullan uses those terms? 17 A. Of -- no. 18 Q. They own a copyright? 19 A. You mean as far as the copyright? 20 Q. No. Different question. They own the copyright. Urantia 21 Foundation -- 22 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I think he asked a question 23 and she was about to answer and then changed the -- 24 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll let you ask it. Go 25 ahead, counselor. 00919 { 3:22:22pm} 01 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Does Urantia Foundation own a 02 copyright? 03 A. Yes, they do. 04 Q. Does Urantia Foundation own some trademarks? 05 A. Yes, they do. 06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: That's all, Your Honor. 07 THE COURT: Any further questions? 08 MR. ABOWITZ: No. 09 THE COURT: You may step down. You'll be excused. 10 (WITNESS EXCUSED) 11 THE COURT: Let's take a recess, ladies and gentlemen 12 of the jury. We'll be recessed for 15 minutes. Be back in the 13 jury box at the end of 15 minutes. I'll remind you of my 14 previous admonition. 15 Everyone please stand and remain standing. 16 Court is in recess. 17 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS 18 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF 19 THE JURY:) 20 THE COURT: Call your next witness, counselor. 21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may counsel approach? 22 THE COURT: Sure. 23 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 24 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We have -- 00920 { 3:54:17pm} 01 THE COURT: Pardon? 02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: When we called Barb Newsom, in my 03 haste I had left out a portion of her testimony. I would like 04 now to recall her for about probably seven to 10 minutes. 05 THE COURT: The last witness? 06 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No, the witness before that, Your 07 Honor. 08 THE COURT: Do you have any problem? 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It won't have to do with the 10 subject that Your Honor ruled on. 11 THE COURT: I would hope -- 12 MR. ABOWITZ: You let her go, Judge. 13 THE COURT: I would hope not. 14 Now, what is it going to be about? 15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It's going to be other documents 16 she authored for the Urantia Foundation. 17 THE COURT: That she authored for the Urantia -- 18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: It's in evidence -- I mean it's 19 not in evidence but it's been stipulated. It's their exhibit 20 with no objections. 21 THE COURT: Any problem? 22 MR. PLOURDE: We don't have any objection to them 23 coming in. 24 MR. ABOWITZ: Well, I'm hesitant to say I don't have 25 a problem until I hear what it is. 00921 { 3:54:17pm} 01 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead and call her back. 02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Murray, one second. 03 Then, Your Honor, at some point we'd like to make an offer 04 of proof. We can do that after -- 05 THE COURT: Sure. Sure. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: Counsel, do I understand that we're not 07 getting into -- 08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'm not going to get into it. 09 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 10 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 11 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're 12 going to recall one witness that was previously called and 13 excused. I'll remind her and you that she's under the oath 14 that was previously administered in this case. 15 MR. ABOWITZ: We have one other issue on that, Judge, 16 if I might. 17 THE COURT: Sure. 18 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 19 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 20 MR. ABOWITZ: I believe the rule of sequestration has 21 been invoked and she came back into the courtroom after she was 22 discharged. 23 THE COURT: Has the rule been invoked? I'm not sure 24 it ever has been. 25 MR. ABOWITZ: I think you indicated you asked 00922 { 3:54:17pm} 01 who witnesses in the case would be. 02 THE COURT: I asked that all in the courtroom who 03 expected to testify to stand and be sworn. But I don't think 04 the rule has been invoked. 05 MR. ABOWITZ: Okay. 06 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It was not. 07 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 08 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 09 THE COURT: Come forward, please, and resume the 10 stand. And I will remind you that you're under the same oath 11 that was previously administered. 12 Be seated, please. Again, state your full name and spell 13 your last name. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. 15 BARBARA A. NEWSOM, 16 being previously sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, 17 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: 18 THE WITNESS: My name is Barbara A. Newsom, 19 N-E-W-S-O-M. 20 THE COURT: Move that microphone over so I can hear 21 you. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Is this better? 23 THE COURT: I think so. 24 25 00923 { 3:54:17pm} 01 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 02 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER: 03 Q. Now, Ms. Newsom, I just want to interject a word of 04 caution, that we're not going to talk about the subject that we 05 were talking about. We're going to move on. 06 A. Yes. 07 Q. Did you have any opportunity to author a paper for Urantia 08 Foundation regarding their history? 09 A. Yes, I did. 10 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, we'll stipulate that she 11 did and stipulate to its admission. 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We would like to offer Plaintiff's 13 Exhibit Number 1. 14 THE COURT: It will be admitted. 15 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Do you recognize that screen? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Tell the jury what that document is. 18 A. This was, as it says, a commemorative history that I 19 co-authored with Carolyn Kendall. Last year we prepared it so 20 that it could be distributed at the 50th anniversary 21 celebration of The Urantia Foundation. 22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: And I'd like if you'd put page 5 23 on, please. 24 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) And what was the purpose of this 25 document? 00924 { 3:54:17pm} 01 A. The purpose of the document was to inform and inspire 02 readers of The Urantia Book around the world by providing a 03 factual history of how the papers came to be published and how 04 the organizations came into being, their goals and objectives, 05 and current work and activities. It was 100 Years of the 06 Urantia Revelation. 07 Q. And when did you prepare this document? 08 A. We started working on it in 1999. Actually, Carolyn and I 09 have been collaborating on history for many years and we 10 thought this might be a good time for Urantia Foundation to 11 share this information on a wider basis. It was really the 12 first Foundation history that had ever been published. 13 Q. And did Urantia Foundation have anything to do with the 14 document? 15 A. Yes. They sponsored the document. The staff and the 16 trustees worked with Carolyn and I on every bit of it. 17 Q. Who contributed actual substantive portions? Who 18 contributed text and who wrote it? 19 A. I wrote the entire -- 20 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may we have a question 21 that's not compound? 22 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll restate it. 23 THE COURT: Restate your question. 24 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Did the Urantia Foundation staff 25 write the document? 00925 { 3:54:17pm} 01 A. No. 02 Q. Did you write the document? 03 A. Yes. 04 Q. What was Carolyn Kendall's role in this? 05 A. Carolyn read the document for me. I would do -- I wrote 06 the draft and she would read it. Carolyn also used her files 07 to supplement what I might not have in my personal files and 08 both of us, during this period, were working to supplement 09 Urantia Foundation files from our own personal files. 10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you turn to -- oh, it's on 11 page 5. 12 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Would you look at that title. I 13 think it's "Preliminary Contacts." 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Describe briefly what is included within this portion of 16 the paper. 17 A. The preliminary contact period began in the 1900s. The 18 precise starting time is not specified; however, Dr. Sadler's 19 published history does describe the activities of the medical 20 doctors who began working with the subject and other 21 specialists who were brought in to investigate the phenomena he 22 was experiencing in his sleep. 23 Q. Now, when you say, "Published history," are you referring 24 to history of the Urantia movement? 25 A. Yes. 00926 { 3:54:17pm} 01 Q. Will you take a look at the bottom paragraph on that page, 02 the last sentence. 03 A. Yes. Where it says, "A Contact Commissioner later"? Do 04 you want me to read it? 05 Q. Please. 06 A. -- "later emphasized that his relative lack of concern 07 about the phenomena did not mean he was not interested in the 08 project." 09 Q. Who is being referred to in that sentence? 10 A. In this case, it was Dr. Sadler. 11 Q. The Contact Commissioner? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I mean who is the pronoun "his"? 14 A. Oh, I'm sorry. 15 MR. ABOWITZ: Asked and answered, Your Honor. 16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No. 17 THE COURT: Overruled. 18 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Who is the pronoun "his"? 19 A. Oh, the pronoun "his" refers to the subject. 20 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you please turn to page 7. 21 Would you go to the two paragraphs above the title, 22 "Presentation and Development of the Papers." 23 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Now, since you don't have a copy in 24 front of you, I'll tell you this is under the title of, "The 25 Plan for the Urantia Papers Announced 1924." 00927 { 3:54:17pm} 01 A. Okay. 02 Q. Would you tell the jury a little bit about this section. 03 A. There was a change in the work that the investigators were 04 doing. At that point, they had been receiving information for 05 several years and they were asked to ask questions. Well, they 06 had been asking questions but more challenging questions, more 07 serious questions. In other words, based on the knowledge that 08 they had developed over the years, they should ask further 09 questions, deeper questions. And they -- the Contact 10 Commissioners had also been told that if they did this, they 11 would receive information that might be of value for all 12 humankind. That there might be -- in other words, they 13 anticipated responses or answers to these questions via this 14 transmission process. 15 At that time, they were also told -- if this is where the 16 plan for the book had already been announced -- is it earlier 17 on the page -- that there was a plan on a series of papers to 18 be published in book form if they would ask these questions, 19 the process would begin and it was a more formal -- it was a 20 change in their work, more formal toward developing the book. 21 Q. So there was a questioning process? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Would you read the last paragraph there, please. The 24 short one. 25 A. "Shortly thereafter, the first Urantia paper appeared in 00928 { 3:54:17pm} 01 answer to these questions, he continued. From first to last, 02 when papers appeared, the questions disappeared. This was the 03 procedure followed for the many years of the reception of the 04 Urantia Papers. No questions, no papers." 05 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you turn to page 8, please. 06 Would you highlight the title at the bottom. 07 Q. (BY MR. SCHOENTHALER) Can you read that from there? 08 A. "The Forum expands." 09 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Would you now go to page 9. 10 Q. Tell the jury a little bit about that section of the 11 paper, "The Forum expands." 12 A. Yes. Well, The Forum was not allowed to talk to people 13 outside of the meetings about the Urantia Papers. They were 14 allowed to invite friends, so they did that, they invited 15 family and friends. They had many more people started to join 16 them for these meetings. During that time, a paper would be 17 read and questions would be asked. So, quite a few people were 18 involved. On the second floor of The Foundation building, 19 there's a large meeting room, what is now The Foundation 20 building, and that's the period in which many more papers were 21 developed. After the first few papers were received, they 22 continued the process. 23 Q. Would you take a look at page 9 and look at the fourth 24 paragraph, "There was a delay," and read the last sentence, 25 please. 00929 { 3:54:17pm} 01 A. "The Forum asked questions about the Jesus papers from 02 1935 to 1942, following the same procedure as they had for the 03 preceding papers." 04 Q. So, when they say, "The same procedure," what are they 05 referring to? 06 A. This was the procedure by which all papers were received 07 and there were the three stages in which the papers were 08 received. 1935 to 1942 was the final stage of reception of the 09 papers. The Jesus papers, as part IV, were the last papers to 10 be completed and there were two reading processes there. 11 During 1935 the papers that had been transmitted earlier for 12 part IV were expanded to their current number of 77. That was 13 completed in '35. Then from '36 to 1942, they continued to ask 14 questions and make revisions on part IV. They were also 15 reading the other three parts of the book from 1936 to 1942 16 along with the Jesus papers. It was their final and third 17 reading of what we now have as the 196 papers. 18 Q. Now, did part I come all at once? 19 A. Part I? No. 20 Q. Did part II come all at once? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did part III come all at once? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did part IV come all at once? 25 A. No. 00930 { 3:54:17pm} 01 Q. Did all these papers individually come in response to 02 questions from The Forum? 03 A. Yes. 04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: No other questions, Your Honor. 05 THE COURT: Cross? 06 CROSS-EXAMINATION 07 BY MR. ABOWITZ: 08 Q. What you've expressed here today is not of your own 09 knowledge; is that correct? 10 A. I believe it is. 11 Q. You were actually present when all of this took place? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Your testimony is based upon what you've read, examined 14 and heard? 15 A. The testimony I just gave is based upon documents that I 16 studied. 17 Q. Right. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So you have no personal information about anything that 20 you've testified to here today; is that correct? 21 A. I was born in 1947. 22 Q. So the answer to my question is yes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Thank you. 25 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you put up page 6, please, and 00931 { 3:55:33pm} 01 would you highlight the second paragraph of that. 02 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) This sentence, "We quite fully 03 understand that the secondary midwayers supervised the 04 contacts.", -- 05 A. Yes. 06 Q. -- does that mean that these celestial persons supervised 07 this whole process? 08 A. Yes. 09 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you please scan the paper down, 10 that page. Okay. Hold on. 11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) And this first sentence under, "The plan 12 for the papers announce," says, "This period of preliminary 13 contact continued until 1924 when the Celestial Revelatory 14 Commission formally established The Contact Commission to 15 oversee the project." That means that these celestial beings 16 formed, established, and supervised The Contact Commission and 17 whatever activities it had in the project of the Urantia 18 Papers; is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. ABOWITZ: Please put up page 7. Would you 21 highlight this paragraph, please. 22 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) In this sentence, "The Contact 23 Commissioners told The Forum about the challenge issued by the 24 revelators and so the doctor invited them to join." Does that 25 mean that the questioning process, the question-and-answer 00932 { 3:57:46pm} 01 process, came as a result of a challenge issued by the 02 revelators? 03 A. To ask more challenging questions, yes. 04 Q. And the revelators are celestial beings? 05 A. Yes. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: If you'd please put up page 8. 07 May I offer this to the witness, Your Honor? 08 THE COURT: Sure. 09 MR. ABOWITZ: Please turn to page 8. Highlight this, 10 please. 11 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Would you read this portion to the jury, 12 please. 13 A. "One of the reasons the revelators gave to The Contact 14 Commission and The Forum for remaining silent about many of 15 their experiences were the 'unknown' features of the process. 16 The doctor explained: 'There is much connected with the 17 appearance of the Urantia Papers which no human being fully 18 understands. There are numerous missing links in our 19 understanding of how this revelation came to appear in written 20 English. If any one of us should tell anyone all he really 21 knows about the technique and methods employed throughout the 22 years of our getting this revelation, such a narration would 23 satisfy no one - there are too many missing links.' "He 24 further stated: 'The main reason for not revealing the 25 identity of the contact personality is that the celestial 00933 { 3:59:53pm} 01 revelators do not want any human being - any human name - ever 02 to be associated with The Urantia Book. They want this 03 revelation to stand on its own declarations and teachings. 04 They are determined that future generations shall have 05 The Urantia Book wholly free from all mortal connection - they 06 do not want another St. Peter, St. Paul, Luther, Calvin or 07 Wesley. The book does not even bear the imprint of the printer 08 who brought the book into being.'" 09 Q. Does this mean, this statement, "There are too many 10 missing links," that we don't know all there is to know about 11 how this was originated? 12 A. We do not know all there is to know about how it 13 originated. 14 Q. And is it true, in your view, that information is solely 15 within the purview of the celestial beings? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Somebody else knows it? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. A human being? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it's not been disclosed? 22 A. Many of the, oh, features of the history, many of the 23 events and the details of transmission have been disclosed. 24 Q. How about the missing links, have they been disclosed? 25 A. Not the ones that he's referring to there. 00934 { 4:01:28pm} 01 Q. All right. And who knows about them? Who has information 02 about those missing links? 03 A. I believe in the context of that paragraph, it refers to 04 the things that we will not know. That we'll not -- 05 Q. And we don't -- 06 A. That we don't know, right. 07 Q. And we don't know who knows about it that's keeping it 08 from us; is that what you're saying? 09 A. I suppose. If I don't know, I don't know. 10 Q. All right. 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Thank you. 13 MR. ABOWITZ: Please put up page 9. Please highlight 14 this paragraph. 15 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) You were asked by counsel for Urantia 16 Foundation about this part IV. Would you read this portion 17 that's in quotations. 18 A. Let's see. 19 Q. I'm sorry. Let me ask you to start here and read through 20 that -- to this point. 21 A. Okay. 22 "There was a delay of about one year in the reception of 23 the Jesus papers - part IV of The Urantia Book while the 24 midwayers waited for an answer to their petition for permission 25 from universe courts to publish this new narration of Jesus' 00935 { 4:03:13pm} 01 life. The Uversa court ruling not only assured them that they, 02 'Were not in contempt of court, but also granted them a 03 Mandate to perform this service and admonishing any and all 04 persons connected therewith to refrain from interfering with, 05 or in any way hindering, the execution of such an 06 undertaking.'" 07 Q. That's a celestial being court that you're referring to 08 there? 09 A. Yes. 10 Q. And so the revelators controlled when all of this book was 11 made available to anybody; is that correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And they also made the decision as to whether or not and 14 when it should be published; is that correct? 15 A. Yes, along with The Contact Commission. 16 Q. Well, The Contact Commission was under the supervision of 17 the revelators, wasn't it? 18 A. Yes, however, only The Contact Commission could act 19 materially to publish The Urantia Book. 20 Q. I understand, but they couldn't do it without the okay of 21 the revelators; is that correct? 22 A. They chose not to. They chose to follow what they 23 believed were the instructions they received. 24 Q. So they were acting pursuant to the instructions of these 25 celestial beings when they published the work? 00936 { 4:04:44pm} 01 A. Yes. 02 Q. All right. And isn't it true that the communication from 03 the revelators went through the patient/contact personality? 04 A. Could you repeat the question? 05 Q. Sure. 06 Isn't it true that the celestial beings communicated 07 through the patient, or subject, as he's been referred to? 08 A. Oh, the human subject? 09 Q. Yes. 10 A. Yes, yes. I'm sorry. 11 Q. Okay. Now, one of the source documents that you had for 12 the 100 Years was a work that was attributed to Dr. Sadler 13 which has been titled -- entitled "The History of the Urantia 14 Movement"; correct? 15 A. Yes. The document was written by Dr. Sadler. The title, 16 however, was not supplied by Dr. Sadler. 17 Q. The title of the paper was not supplied by Dr. Sadler? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Whatever -- but that's the work? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. That's the title we know it by; is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. ABOWITZ: Would you please leave that up. Would 24 you highlight that paragraph that you had highlighted, please? 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Which paragraph is that? 00937 { 4:06:08pm} 01 MR. ABOWITZ: The one with, "There was." 02 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you recall the portion of the 03 Dr. Sadler paper that says, "The first three parts were 04 completed and certified to us in A.D. 1934 and the Jesus Papers 05 were not so delivered to us until 1935"? 06 A. That's correct. 07 Q. And you took that Sadler work as true? 08 A. Yes. 09 Q. Thank you. 10 MR. ABOWITZ: That's all I have. 11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, may counsel and I 12 approach? May counsel and I approach? 13 THE COURT: Sure. 14 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 15 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Looks like I'm going to win this 17 time. I don't want to go into all the contents that she read 18 in those diaries -- I mean those journals, but I think he 19 brought into question where she got this knowledge and I think 20 I'm entitled to at least bring -- have her say, "I drew this 21 information from Dr. Sadler's journals." 22 MR. ABOWITZ: That door wasn't opened. I just asked 23 her if she was testifying of her own personal knowledge and 24 she -- 25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: He asked her if she relied on 00938 { 4:07:34pm} 01 documents. 02 THE COURT: I'll sustain the previous objection. 03 Don't get into that. 04 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 05 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 06 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 07 BY MR. SCHOENTHALER: 08 Q. Do you believe human beings have free will? 09 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you believe that human beings can choose to act or 11 choose not to act? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you believe what's in The Urantia Book? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you believe it came from celestial beings? 16 A. I do. 17 Q. Do you choose to believe that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And when the Contact Commission took steps and The Forum 20 took steps to ask questions or to publish the book, were those 21 acts of their free will? 22 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm going to object. She 23 has no personal knowledge of that. 24 THE COURT: Sustained. 25 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor. 00939 { 4:08:31pm} 01 THE COURT: You may step down. You'll be excused. 02 (WITNESS EXCUSED) 03 THE COURT: Call your next witness. 04 MR. HILL: Your Honor, I think we just want to tender 05 a few additional exhibits into evidence at this time. Tender 06 Urantia Foundation exhibit 16, 23, 28, and I believe those are 07 all previously stipulated to but not yet tendered. 08 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection. 09 THE COURT: Be admitted. 10 MR. HILL: And we invoke the rule. 11 THE COURT: I'm having difficulty hearing you, 12 counsel. 13 MR. ABOWITZ: He invokes the rule, Judge. 14 MR. HILL: We're invoking the rule, Judge. 15 THE COURT: You're invoking the rule? 16 MR. HILL: Yeah. It's a little late but we're 17 invoking it. 18 Can I have just a moment? 19 THE COURT: The rule of sequestration of witnesses 20 has been invoked which will require all of the witnesses in the 21 courtroom who expect to testify to remain outside the courtroom 22 until such time as they have testified or called to testify. 23 They're also admonished and instructed that they should not 24 discuss their testimony with any other witness in the case. 25 You gentlemen, of course, will be required to assist the 00940 { 4:09:52pm} 01 Court in enforcing the rule inasmuch as I don't know who all of 02 your witnesses are. 03 MR. HILL: Judge, we have one more exhibit that we're 04 discussing the stipulation as to tendering with the other side. 05 THE COURT: That'll work. 06 MR. HILL: And we'll tender Michael Foundation 07 exhibit 44 into evidence. 08 MR. ABOWITZ: No objection. 09 THE COURT: Admitted. 10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, we still have the item 11 of the offer of proof. 12 THE COURT: We can do that during a recess, 13 counselor. The proceedings will be without prejudice to your 14 offer of proof made outside the presence of the jury. 15 MR. HILL: We'll rest, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Defendants rest. 17 Rebuttal? 18 MR. ABOWITZ: We have some motions to make. Do you 19 want to take them up after the rebuttal? 20 THE COURT: Yes. Without prejudice to your motions, 21 we'll go ahead and hear the rebuttal evidence so we can let the 22 jury go home if we complete this afternoon. 23 MR. ABOWITZ: I would call -- recall Mr. McMullan to 24 the stand, please. 25 THE COURT: Mr. McMullan, I'll remind you that you're 00941 { 4:11:31pm} 01 also under the same oath that was previously administered in 02 this case. 03 Again, state your full name and spell your last name. 04 THE WITNESS: Harry McMullan, M-c-M-U-L-L-A-N. 05 HARRY McMULLAN, 06 having been previously sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth 07 and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: 08 DIRECT EXAMINATION 09 BY MR. ABOWITZ: 10 Q. Mr. McMullan, you were present during the testimony of 11 Mr. Jameson? 12 A. Yes, I was. 13 Q. Do you recall the questions and answers regarding the sum 14 of $1,500 that -- the question was: Did he contribute anything 15 to the Maaherra defense fund, and he said he did but that it 16 was supposed to be to a Mr. J. J. Johnson. 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. He indicated that he made the donation to the Asoka 19 Foundation. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury 20 what that is? 21 A. The Asoka Foundation is a foundation that I set up in 1983 22 to do Urantia kind of work. 23 Q. And was that foundation available to accept donations for 24 the Maaherra defense fund? 25 A. Yes, it was. 00942 { 4:12:43pm} 01 Q. And did Mr. Jameson make a donation? 02 A. The records that we have, at least that I had easy access 03 to in checking this, had to do with expenditures rather than 04 with receipts but I certainly believe that he said that he made 05 that, and I believe him that he did. 06 Q. Is there any indication that the donation was restricted 07 to Mr. Johnson? 08 A. None whatsoever. 09 Q. Was there any mechanism set up so that he could limit that 10 donation to Mr. Johnson? 11 A. No. 12 Q. How did the procedure work whereby the money from Asoka 13 Foundation got to the Maaherra defense fund? 14 A. All of the money that was received by Asoka Foundation was 15 sent to the attorneys for Kristen Maaherra that were designated 16 for Kristen Maaherra's defense. 17 Q. In total? 18 A. In total. No deduction. I sent the lawyers -- Kristen 19 Maaherra's lawyers the money. 20 Q. And was there any indication that some sum of money should 21 be attributed solely to the defense of Mr. Johnson? 22 A. Not that I have any recollection of. We did -- the only 23 reason I'm able to testify to this at all is that the opposing 24 party asked us to provide records for all our expenses in the 25 Maaherra case, and so my secretary assembled this information 00943 { 4:14:12pm} 01 and we provided all of that to the opposing counsel, and there 02 was nothing to J. J. Johnson on the expenditure side. 03 Q. You mean these opposing counsel, Urantia Foundation's 04 lawyers? 05 A. Yes, they asked in the course of discovery to know what 06 all the expenditures were that went to the Kristen Maaherra 07 fund. 08 Q. How many people contributed to the Maaherra defense fund? 09 A. There were -- from my understanding, there were something 10 around 300. These all didn't go through Asoka Foundation. 11 There were really not that many that went through Asoka 12 Foundation. My understanding is that something over 300 people 13 did. 14 Q. Was there a conversation that occurred between you and 15 Mr. Jameson where this subject was addressed? 16 A. There was. 17 Q. And would you relate it for the ladies and gentlemen of 18 the jury, please. 19 A. The circumstance was that Urantia Foundation filed a 20 subpoena for the records of Asoka Foundation to -- and another 21 foundation named Agendire Foundation to find out the identities 22 of everyone who had contributed to Kristen Maaherra. It was -- 23 it was referred to as the round-them-up-and-brand-them action 24 by Urantia Foundation. And Asoka Foundation resisted the 25 subpoena because we didn't -- you know, we thought it violated 00944 { 4:15:39pm} 01 freedom of all sorts of constitutional freedoms for them to get 02 this information. And in the course of discussing this with 03 Gard Jameson, he said, "Well, if they brand the rest of you, 04 they'll have to brand me too." 05 Q. Were you branded? 06 A. No. The subpoena was withdrawn. 07 Q. You were here during Mr. Tibbal's testimony? 08 A. Yes, I was. 09 Q. He indicated that there was some discussion that you put 10 together a scheme to, I gather, to illegally work around or 11 wire around some customs duties or the like. Were you here 12 when that discussion took place? 13 A. Yes, I was. 14 Q. Was he correct in his pronouncement of that conversation? 15 A. No, he wasn't. 16 Q. What happened? 17 A. Well, he was about half right because the circumstance he 18 was describing was correct. There was a group of Urantia Book 19 readers in Chile that wanted Spanish Urantia Books, and so The 20 Fellowship wanted to get these readers books and there's 21 100-percent duty levied by the State of Chile and it was going 22 to be -- these people don't have much money -- and it was going 23 to be expensive to them. So a person named -- a man named Joe 24 Liska has a cosmetics company and he -- anyway, they found out 25 somehow that the duties on cosmetics are less, and so Urantia 00945 { 4:17:17pm} 01 Books were put into these cosmetics boxes and they were sent 02 down. 03 So, sort of he was right, a little bit about the story, 04 but I just told him the story. I didn't have anything 05 personally to do with it. Somebody else did that. 06 Q. Was it your cosmetic company? 07 A. No. 08 Q. Did you load the boxes? 09 A. No. 10 Q. Did you load the books in the boxes? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did they get their books? 13 A. As far as I know. 14 Q. Okay. There was discussion about several portions of The 15 Urantia Book being able to be read on their own. You've 16 indicated earlier to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury your 17 familiarity with the book. Could you address that testimony 18 briefly, please? With respect to those portions that were 19 examined about and the examples given, can they be read 20 separately and apart from the book? 21 A. It's possible, of course, to read any paragraph apart from 22 another paragraph, but the point I tried to make earlier is 23 that you can't really understand these things apart from the 24 rest of the book. 25 For example, in the Adam and Eve illustration that 00946 { 4:18:39pm} 01 Ms. Baney gave, those papers don't describe what the order of 02 being is, and they're called material sons, and you learn about 03 that in another paper, and they come from a place called 04 edentia and there's a paper about what edentia is like. And it 05 doesn't -- and those papers don't describe the fact of what 06 human life -- how human life got to where it was when Adam and 07 Eve arrived. It doesn't describe -- well, one of the most 08 important things it doesn't describe is the situation on earth 09 that according to The Urantia Book there was a rebellion that 10 had taken place. There was a man named Lucifer that rebelled 11 against the government of God and his lieutenant on earth was a 12 man named Caligastia and he had sort of gone over to the bad 13 guys. 14 And, so -- and then these material sons came down -- I 15 know this is very strange for the jury -- but the point I'm 16 trying to make is that there are just a lot of things in there 17 that aren't in those exact papers that you simply don't have 18 the slightest idea what the context is for the answer unless 19 you've read at least -- I mean a major part of the -- well, 20 papers, paper after paper after paper of the rest of The 21 Urantia Book. 22 Those facts -- the background on those facts is only 23 available just in the sketchiest form if at all in The Urantia 24 Book. There are races that come from Adam and Eve that are 25 described later. So, it's just -- I -- you know, it's just not 00947 { 4:20:18pm} 01 so. It's simply not so that you can read these things apart 02 from the rest of it. 03 The papers about the universal father don't tell anything 04 about the eternal son who is -- and the infinite spirit, and 05 these are the three people, according to the Urantia scheme, 06 that go into making up the trinity. They don't say about -- 07 they don't give any description of paradise, where they live, 08 and what the relationship of paradise is to the rest of the 09 universes. 10 There are other papers on who the other beings are that 11 live on paradise with the universal father, who's God, who's 12 essentially God. So it just goes on and on. There's no way 13 to -- It's true what she says that you can read it and you can 14 get something out of it, that's true, but in terms of 15 understanding the context, they in no sense can be considered 16 standalone. 17 Q. Do you have an understanding as to whether or not the 18 people that put this book together in terms of the paper that 19 Ms. Newsom discussed, this 100 Years, was it their intention 20 that that book be read a piece at a time without any 21 continuity? 22 MR. HILL: Objection, Your Honor. Is he asking what 23 his understanding -- 24 THE COURT: Yes, I don't understand your question. 25 Please restate your question, counselor. 00948 { 4:21:41pm} 01 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Do you have an understanding of whether 02 these revelators intended The Urantia Book to be read on a 03 piecemeal paper-within-paper basis? 04 MR. HILL: Speculation. 05 THE COURT: Sustained. 06 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) Is there a continuity to the book? 07 A. Yes. 08 Q. The 192 papers? 09 A. 196. 10 Q. 196 papers. I'm sorry. 11 A. Yes, there is, very definitely. 12 Q. And you've related to us earlier in the week why you 13 thought the Jesus - A New Revelation could be read in its 14 entirety as part IV? 15 A. Yes, I did. 16 Q. And does that detract from the continuity? 17 A. Of The Urantia Book? 18 Q. Yeah. 19 A. Does the publication of this book detract from it? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Well, I think if it weren't for the fact of the index 22 describing who these other beings are, if it were not for that, 23 I would say yes, it would be really puzzling because it 24 doesn't -- there's nothing in here that goes into, for example, 25 who thought adjusters are, who Melchizedeks are, who secondary 00949 { 4:22:52pm} 01 midwayers are. One of the most important things is who Jesus 02 was in his preexistent state of being prior to coming here as 03 Jesus. The Urantia Book says that he was on an order of -- one 04 of the orders of creator sons which are sons of the eternal 05 father and there's a lot of information about that. So, you 06 don't get the feeling of the power and majesty of this being 07 who came down here to be our savior. 08 And, so, I think -- you know, so it's really, if I hadn't 09 thought it had a certain ability to be understood, I certainly 10 wouldn't have -- I wouldn't have participated in doing it. But 11 it says to look at the Urantia Book when you hit these things, 12 and that was my attempt, to make it -- to have it make sense. 13 Q. You were accused of baiting The Urantia Foundation into 14 initiating this litigation. Is that a true accusation? 15 A. No, no, it's not true. 16 Q. And why not? 17 A. If I wanted a lawsuit, I could have just filed the 18 lawsuit. I wouldn't have risked having them forum shop and try 19 to get this case into some other district. I wouldn't have 20 gone to the trouble of just printing this -- I mean, we went to 21 a lot of trouble to print this thing, to put it together. I 22 did it because I think it's a good thing. None of that was 23 necessary. If all I wanted to do was to get Urantia Foundation 24 in court, all I had to do was to hire a lawyer and file a 25 motion and it would have been in court, and I didn't do that. 00950 { 4:24:29pm} 01 Q. One last thing. The ladies and gentlemen of the jury have 02 seen a letter that you wrote to Mr. Jameson. Was that letter 03 accurate insofar as it set out your personal feelings for him? 04 A. Could I see what you're referring to? 05 Q. Yes. 06 MR. ABOWITZ: Highlight this. 07 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) It says, "You and I will always get 08 along on a personal basis because we love and respect each 09 other but it does not follow that I should submit to the views 10 of your adopted organization which I view as having done 11 incalculable harm to the worldwide community of believers and 12 the progress of the revelation any more than you should submit 13 to what I believe." 14 A. That was my feeling then and that's my feeling today. 15 MR. ABOWITZ: May we have the second page of this, 16 please? 17 Q. (BY MR. ABOWITZ) The last paragraph reads, "With respect 18 to your desire that I be patient and of good will, please be 19 assured that my good will toward you is boundless." 20 Do you have that same view toward Mr. Keeler? 21 A. I do. 22 Q. And Mr. Siegel? 23 A. I do. 24 Q. "But in case I haven't made myself perfectly clear, I am 25 unalterably antagonistic toward Urantia Foundation so long as 00951 { 4:26:44pm} 01 it views its mission in terms of absolute control of the 02 revelation, no matter how many translations it might be 03 producing or other nifty projects it might be engaged in." 04 Is that your view of The Foundation? 05 A. Yes, it is. 06 Q. "If you and your fellow trustees have the moral courage to 07 change that approach, then anything is possible. As you have 08 heard me say before, there is nothing The Foundation does which 09 it could not do better without the copyright and trademarks." 10 Is that your position? 11 A. That's precisely my position today. 12 MR. ABOWITZ: Thank you. That's all I have, Your 13 Honor. 14 THE COURT: Cross? 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. HILL: 17 Q. Ever see the movie Star Wars, Mr. McMullan? 18 A. Yes, I have. 19 Q. Did you enjoy it? 20 A. Yeah, I did. 21 Q. It tells a good story, doesn't it? 22 A. It does. 23 Q. Yes. But Star Wars is actually a part IV in a series of 24 stories that are all interwoven together, as we know from the 25 release of sequels and prequels; right? 00952 { 4:27:55pm} 01 A. I thought it was even more than four parts, but I know 02 that there's some -- 03 Q. Oh, right, right. There are parts after the movie Star 04 Wars as well; it's just that they picked a story in the middle 05 of the series and made it a movie. 06 A. That's my understanding. 07 Q. Have you ever used The Urantia Book as a reference piece 08 the way Ms. Newsom described from the stand this afternoon when 09 she was at college to reference it on different subjects with 10 courses that she was taking? 11 A. Yes, I have. 12 Q. As I hear your testimony this afternoon, it sounds like 13 the point that you're trying to make to the jury is that you 14 don't have animosity towards Urantia Foundation or any of its 15 trustees but you just don't like the intellectual property 16 rights, namely, the copyright and the trademarks; is that a 17 fair characterization? 18 A. Well, that's what I would like it to be, but I've got a 19 temper and it has -- I've said things that I wish I hadn't, but 20 when I'm sort of in a calmed state of mind, that is exactly -- 21 that is exactly the way that I feel. 22 Q. Okay. And, so, what are you saying? Are you saying that 23 at times you've said things that were more personal in nature 24 with respect to reflecting animosity toward Urantia Foundation 25 as an organization as opposed to just the copyright or just the 00953 { 4:29:32pm} 01 trademarks? 02 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may I have the question 03 again? I think I got lost in it. 04 THE COURT: That's a compound question. 05 MR. HILL: Yes. 06 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Are you saying -- When you say that 07 sometimes you lose your temper, am I accurately characterizing 08 your statement? 09 A. Yes, you are. 10 Q. Sometimes you lose your temper. 11 And in those times when you do lose your temper, are you 12 saying that it becomes more personal with respect to Urantia 13 Foundation and its trustees and it becomes not just about the 14 copyright and the trademarks? 15 A. I want Urantia Foundation to succeed. I want them to do a 16 good job. I think they try very hard. But my point is that I 17 don't think it's good for the community of believers for them 18 to have this hammer of control over all the other believers. I 19 want -- 20 Q. And the hammer is the copyright; right? 21 MR. ABOWITZ: Your Honor, may he finish his answer, 22 please? 23 MR. HILL: Well, I want to make sure that we 24 understand what the hammer is before we keep -- 25 THE COURT: All right. Ask your next question. And 00954 { 4:30:29pm} 01 you'll be given an opportunity to explore it. 02 Q. (BY MR. HILL) Mr. McMullan, is the hammer that you're 03 referring to the copyright? 04 A. The copyright and trademarks, yes. 05 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Continue. 06 A. What's the question? 07 Q. Okay. We'll move on. I thought you -- I thought you had 08 something that you wanted to say after that and I cut you off. 09 A. No, that's really it. It's just those two things. Other 10 than that, they're fellow believers that want to get this book 11 out. I want them and everybody else on the face of the earth 12 to get it out. I don't want one group to have control over all 13 the other groups. That's the only problem I have. 14 Q. And so you've never said anything wishing the destruction 15 of Urantia Foundation or harm to any of its trustees or 16 executives? 17 A. If I have, I regret it, but I don't really -- it's 18 possible that I said those things, so, I'll admit that. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. But it does not reflect my underlying view which is what 21 was stated in that letter. What was stated in that letter, you 22 know, when I'm calmer, that is exactly -- that's exactly the 23 way I feel. 24 Q. What about in -- What about when you're writing things to 25 the executive counsel of The Fellowship, for example? Is your 00955 { 4:31:55pm} 01 demeanor calm and -- I'm going to use the word "responsible" -- 02 and I don't know if you agree with that word or not -- but is 03 your demeanor calm at least when you're composing things when 04 you're sending things off for all of your executive committee 05 members at The Fellowship to review? 06 A. Unfortunately, not always. 07 Q. Okay. Do you recall sending a message to The Fellowship 08 executive council discussing -- and I don't know whether you 09 were serious about this, I'm presuming this was a joke -- 10 discussing taking a yellow Ryder truck up to the front of 11 Urantia Foundation headquarters? 12 A. Yes, I did say that. 13 Q. And when questioned further about it, do you recall 14 posting to the fellow executive committee members that that 15 would be along the lines of Timothy McVeigh? 16 A. This is such a complete misinterpretation of something 17 that I said. I really -- I have no desire to harm one soul on 18 the face of this earth much less Urantia Foundation. It was a 19 very tasteless comment in view of what happened across the 20 street and I'm sorry for it. But I would never remotely do or 21 say anything that would -- I'm sorry I have said things but I 22 would never, ever wish physical harm on any living person. 23 MR. HILL: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? 24 THE COURT: Sure. 25 Q. (BY MR. HILL) This is the e-mail posting that we've been 00956 { 4:33:51pm} 01 just discussing. Do you recall that? 02 A. It certainly appears to be mine. I'm just trying to read 03 it to see what I said. 04 THE COURT: For the record, does it have a number? 05 MR. HILL: I brought it up just in rebuttal, Judge. 06 We didn't list it. 07 A. It's very tasteless humor on my part. 08 Q. (BY MR. HILL) So your testimony is then that this 09 suggestion, "I was thinking more down the lines of Timothy 10 McVeigh," is just bad taste but does not actually reflect 11 personal animosity and a desire to destroy Urantia Foundation; 12 that's your testimony, true? 13 A. Yes, it is. 14 MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you. 15 THE COURT: Anything further? 16 MR. ABOWITZ: Nothing further, Judge. 17 THE COURT: You may step down. 18 (WITNESS EXCUSED) 19 THE COURT: Have any further evidence, counselor, or 20 testimony? 21 MR. ABOWITZ: No, sir. 22 THE COURT: Surrebuttal, if any? 23 MR. HILL: None, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Both sides rest? 25 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes, Your Honor. 00957 { 4:35:00pm} 01 THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the bench then for 02 just a moment. 03 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AT THE BENCH, OUT OF 04 HEARING OF THE JURY:) 05 THE COURT: Now, what I propose to do, and I just 06 wanted to see if this suits everyone, is to excuse this jury -- 07 explain to them they've had all the evidence they'll hear but 08 there's still the closing arguments and instructions phase and 09 then their deliberations, and ask them to come back at 10 10 o'clock in the morning, and put all of you all to work on an 11 instructions conference now and then we'll have a formal 12 instructions conference after you all have hammered out the 13 proposals and the objections to what we're proposing, and get 14 the jury back in here about 10 o'clock in the morning and 15 hopefully we can start then with the instructions and the 16 argument. Let me ask you this: Have y'all decided whether you 17 want to argue first or instruct first? Have y'all reached an 18 agreement on that? 19 MR. ABOWITZ: Haven't discussed it. 20 THE COURT: Normally, in federal court we argue and 21 then instruct. There's a lot to be said for the state court 22 procedure of instructing first and then arguing afterward 23 because you have the benefit -- 24 MR. ABOWITZ: The instructions. 25 THE COURT: -- of having the instructions already 00958 { 4:36:24pm} 01 read and in hand in your attempts to explain and persuade. 02 Now, which do you -- 03 MR. ABOWITZ: If we have a choice, we would prefer 04 the instructions occur before the argument and we could then 05 use the instructions in the argument. 06 THE COURT: What's your reaction to that? 07 MR. HILL: That's fine. 08 THE COURT: Let's do that then. 09 All right. How long do you all anticipate you will want 10 to -- need to argue? 11 MR. ABOWITZ: That gets us back to the question we 12 were talking about earlier. Are we going -- we're not going to 13 be subjected -- the jury is not going to be called upon to 14 determine the author? 15 THE COURT: Let me say this: We don't need to decide 16 how long your argument will be tonight. 17 MR. ABOWITZ: What I want to know is earlier we 18 discussed a staggered argument. My query is: Are we still on 19 that path? 20 MR. HILL: (COUNSEL SHAKES HEAD) 21 THE COURT: I assume not but I don't want to make any 22 final decisions with regard to anything until our instructions 23 conference in the morning. 24 MR. HILL: I would like to know how long Your Honor 25 is going to permit for closing. 00959 { 4:37:28pm} 01 THE COURT: Ordinarily, I allow about 10 minutes per 02 day of trial. 03 MR. HILL: So 50 minutes? 04 THE COURT: That would give about 50 minutes maximum. 05 Does that sound about right to y'all? 06 MR. HILL: If we go one stage, that should be plenty 07 of time. 08 THE COURT: You don't have to take it all, of 09 course. And I won't let you take more. 10 All right. Let's break up then and I'll instruct the jury 11 here. Neither one of you anticipate reopening for any purpose, 12 do you? 13 MR. HILL: No. 14 MR. ABOWITZ: No. 15 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, one thing is -- 16 THE COURT: We'll keep everybody here after the jury 17 leaves so you can make a record. 18 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I think she has left, so the point 19 might be moot. I'm going to check. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. HILL: She had a flight. 22 THE COURT: I'll let you dictate what your offer of 23 proof would be anyhow. 24 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT AND 25 WITHIN THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) 00960 { 4:38:27pm} 01 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the 02 good news is that you've heard all of the evidence in this case 03 that you'll be called upon to hear, but the remaining two -- 04 well, three very important aspects of this case are to take 05 place yet. 06 The first will be the Court's instructions with regard to 07 what the law is that you're to apply. As you can comprehend, 08 that's going to be -- is a pretty complex area of the law and 09 I'll have to instruct you at length sometime in the morning 10 after we've had an extensive conference, and I've got the 11 benefit of counsel's advice as to what that law is under the 12 facts of this case, and then after I've instructed you with 13 regard to the law, the attorneys for both sides will be given 14 an opportunity to make a closing statement. Again, not 15 evidence in the case but in an attempt by the attorneys to 16 persuade you or convince you of the conclusions that you should 17 draw or they would like for you to draw from the evidence that 18 you've heard in this case. 19 Again, the argument of counsel is not evidence, so you're 20 not bound by it but you can take that into consideration in 21 evaluating the evidence, evaluating credibility of the 22 witnesses, and making determinations collectively as to what 23 the facts are. 24 Then, after I've instructed and after they've argued, the 25 third and last important part will be that you will go down and 00961 { 4:39:55pm} 01 begin your deliberations with a copy of the instructions in 02 hand and a copy of the verdict form and the interrogatories 03 that we'll submit to you to help you reach that verdict as to 04 what it is and deliberate with regard to what your verdict 05 should be in this case. 06 Now, I'm going to need at least until 10 o'clock in the 07 morning. We may go beyond that in my phase of it but I'll ask 08 you to be back here at 10 o'clock. We'll try to start very 09 promptly thereafter. 10 I want to again specifically admonish you that even though 11 you've heard all of the evidence in this case, I don't want you 12 to make up your mind about what verdict to reach in this case 13 until you've heard the instructions, until you've heard the 14 argument of counsel, and that you go down into the jury room 15 and deliberate among yourselves what that verdict should be. 16 And certainly don't express any opinion with regard to this 17 case to anyone or permit them to do so. 18 With that admonition, I'll ask you to be back at 19 10 o'clock in the morning in the jury deliberation room and 20 we'll try to start very promptly thereafter. 21 Drive carefully and we'll see you tomorrow. 22 Everyone please stand. 23 (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM, AFTER WHICH THE 24 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT:) 25 THE COURT: Do you want to make a record at this 00962 { 4:53:16pm} 01 point, Mr. Schoenthaler? 02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Sure. 03 THE COURT: Make an offer? Go ahead. 04 Be seated, please, ladies and gentlemen. 05 You can do it from the microphone. Just so counsel -- the 06 court reporter can hear you, counsel. 07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, Barb Newsom was going 08 to testify that she had reviewed three volumes of Dr. Sadler's 09 journal dating from 1920 to mid 1960s and that those journals 10 contained his handwritten statements from a day-to-day basis 11 about what went on. That those journals would state specific 12 dates and specific occurrences and would also describe with 13 some specificity exactly what -- certain aspects regarding the 14 subject himself but not his identity. 15 For example, she was prepared to testify that this subject 16 was consulted early in the process with numerous doctors, not 17 just Dr. Sadler, and that at some point those doctors dropped 18 off and Dr. Sadler continued to work with this subject and that 19 he was aware of what was going on while he was not asleep. 20 While he was asleep, he was not aware of what was happening. 21 When he was awake, he was shown the papers, he was told about 22 the papers, and he thought it was mildly interesting, the 23 entire project. 24 She was also going to testify that he specifically said, 25 "I don't need to be the author of this," and he was told that 00963 { 4:53:16pm} 01 the Contact Commission planned to publish the book at a fairly 02 early stage, and he said, "I don't have any problem with that 03 and I don't want a copyright in it." 04 Also, she was prepared to testify that there were three 05 parts to the question-and-answer process. That the first 06 question-and-answer process was between 1925 and 1929 and that 07 the questions drew the first 57 papers of the book. Now, each 08 and every subject that was included within those 57 papers is 09 now in the 196 papers of The Urantia Book. 10 What happened in the second session, from 1929 to 1935, 11 was these papers were expanded, and, based on the questions, 12 they slowly evolved into more papers. Titles were changed, 13 papers were segmented, partial papers became just that single 14 paper. And through that process, up until 1935, those papers 15 were expanded. At that point -- also, before I move on, those 16 57 papers contained the Life of Jesus as is now found in part 17 IV of the book but there wasn't a lot of information regarding 18 it. 19 In 1935, the Jesus papers started to arrive from the 20 questioning process. They did not arrive all at once. They 21 arrived just like all the other papers in response to 22 questions. And the Jesus papers, however, arrived in a 23 relatively small period of time, a year. That is the second 24 stage. 25 The third stage was what she called "The Clarification of 00964 { 4:53:16pm} 01 Concepts and Removal of Ambiguities," and that was from 1936 to 02 1942 in which The Forum continued to ask questions which were 03 submitted to the Contact Commission just like with every other 04 paper and all the other phases. Those papers that then came -- 05 no more papers came but those papers that were already there, 06 the 196 papers that were there as of 1935, were then changed. 07 The first three parts were not changed very much but part IV 08 was actually condensed because it was way too big compared to 09 the other three parts. She was prepared to testify that this 10 condensation, the decision to condense part IV, was made by the 11 Contact Commissioners. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Now, counselor, just for the 13 purposes of the record, you're presenting a witness who wanted 14 to testify with regard to statements made or written by someone 15 other than herself; right? 16 MR. SCHOENTHALER: She was going to testify that they 17 were the business records of the Contact Commission. 18 THE COURT: And those records, they were being 19 offered to introduce the truth of the statements made therein; 20 isn't that correct? 21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: They certainly were. 22 THE COURT: And you're attempting to -- that is a 23 classic hearsay situation except you're attempting to get 24 around that on the grounds that this is -- that there's an 25 exception to the hearsay rule? 00965 { 4:53:16pm} 01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: The exceptions we were prepared to 02 rely upon, Your Honor, were, first of all, records of an 03 organization kept in the ordinary course. She was prepared to 04 testify they were kept for 50 years, the early '20s to the 05 '60s, they were kept on a regular basis, and they had to do 06 with the work the Contact Commission was doing. 07 THE COURT: Okay. Now that was the exception that -- 08 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We were also prepared to rely upon 09 the ancient documents exception. 10 THE COURT: All right. State that. 11 MR. SCHOENTHALER: 20-year-old documents, the 12 authenticity which has been established, and then you are 13 allowed to rely upon the truth of the statements therein. She 14 was prepared to testify they were over 20 years old, she 15 reviewed them in 1976, and she was prepared to testify as to 16 the authenticity, as further secondary evidence that we were 17 prepared to present to this Court but did not because we did 18 not know of the exhibit at the time the pretrial order was made 19 and did not list it. Therefore, we were not going to have any 20 testimony regarding this. She had her handwritten notes that 21 she took from those documents, those journals. We found out 22 about them and this is -- we found out about them the weekend 23 right before and I did not see them until while the trial was 24 going on. I did not even speak to her about them until 25 yesterday. 00966 { 4:53:16pm} 01 THE COURT: All right. Now, that's the rest of the 02 record that I wanted to make. She was listed as a witness by 03 you; is that correct? 04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: That is correct. 05 THE COURT: And the summary of her testimony was 06 summarized how? 07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I don't know. I would have to 08 refer to the pretrial order, Your Honor. 09 THE COURT: Can you do that? 10 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Yes. One moment. 11 THE COURT: Counsel presented that and said that they 12 had no reason to expect or discover her testimony based upon 13 the characterization or summarization of what her testimony -- 14 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Well, I will admit it's a close 15 call, Your Honor. It says, "Ms. Newsom is expected to testify 16 as to the manner in which the 50-year anniversary document was 17 prepared, matters relating to the origin of The Urantia Book." 18 And I submit to this Court that that's precisely what she was 19 going to do because that document that we put up on the screen 20 in front of her, that document was made based on her written 21 notes regarding Dr. Sadler's lost journals. 22 And she was also prepared to testify that Emma Christensen 23 came into an executive meeting of Urantia Foundation in 1979 24 and she was distraught, as distraught as she had ever seen her, 25 and she said, "My lock -- my file cabinet that's in the back of 00967 { 4:53:16pm} 01 my office, there's only one way in, the documents that were in 02 there are gone." That the trustees said, "Find them." That 03 Christie, Ms. Christensen, Barbara Newsom, and the trustees and 04 the staff of Urantia Foundation looked all over the place for 05 them and realized that they could not be found. At that point, 06 as soon as she found that, she said, "I had better write this 07 down for posterity's sake." She sat down, dated December 1979, 08 and wrote 30 handwritten pages from her memory. 09 We were prepared to resurrect her recollection, but, to 10 tell you the truth, Your Honor, she didn't need it. Her 11 document, her spiral-bound notebook that she was prepared to 12 show to this Court, had her address. One of the reasons we 13 know this was 1979, the address on there, there are two 14 addresses on the inside cover, one is her maiden name, Barbara 15 Kulieke, with an address in Kansas which she brought to Urantia 16 Foundation, and the address next to it is a Chicago address 17 with her name, Barbara Newsom. She got married in 1979. We 18 could have authenticated it, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Now then, for the record, you discovered 20 this information when? Friday night? Last Friday night? 21 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I heard about it Friday night. I 22 did not know the contents of it. I mean, she said, "I have 23 some documents you need to see." No one has ever asked me for 24 them and I've never told anybody. 25 THE COURT: Okay. What, if any, notice did you give 00968 { 4:53:16pm} 01 to opposing counsel -- 02 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We didn't give any -- 03 THE COURT: -- with regard to that -- 04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: We did not give any. The reason 05 is is we were not prepared to rely upon the actual document 06 that she brought with her. I never presented it. She had it 07 in her bag but she wasn't going to present it. She was going 08 to testify from her recollection as to an ancient document 09 and/or a business record. 10 THE COURT: Now then, do you have anything else you 11 wish to say on the record before I give counsel -- 12 MR. SCHOENTHALER: I will -- Just to make sure I 13 didn't miss anything, she was prepared to state that part IV 14 did not come all at once and that it was condensed. I think I 15 said that. 16 THE COURT: Say again now. 17 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Part IV of The Urantia Book did 18 not arrive all at once, and part IV was condensed by a decision 19 of the Contact Commissioners. 20 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from Mr. Plourde. 21 MR. PLOURDE: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 First of all, that document, the 50 years, was co-authored 23 by Ms. Newsom. Her co-author was Carolyn Kendall who testified 24 here. I took Carolyn Kendall's deposition and asked her fairly 25 extensively, you know, about the sources of documents for that 00969 { 4:53:16pm} 01 paper and she never mentioned Dr. Sadler's lost notes. 02 They didn't list Barbara Newsom to testify about the lost 03 notes. They listed her to testify about the 100 years. And 04 while that may be tangentially related to the lost notes, I 05 don't think it's very fair notice when they're going to bring 06 somebody in and have them testify to a bunch of documents that 07 aren't going to be put in evidence, that are apart from the 08 history that they wrote down, and say a bunch of stuff that 09 supposedly was in those documents that don't show up in the 10 history that they did identify. I know that's a little bit -- 11 I didn't state that as well as I could. But, generally, Judge, 12 you've got the history that they produced to us, that is in 13 evidence, and to say that they're entitled to testify about an 14 entirely different document because to some extent she says she 15 relies on that in creating that history I think is far too 16 tangentially related to come in under the description that they 17 provided. 18 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. You've heard 19 his position. Are you reasserting your objection to that 20 testimony? 21 MR. PLOURDE: Yes. 22 THE COURT: And are you comfortable with doing so? 23 MR. PLOURDE: Yes, sir. 24 THE COURT: All right. The Court will sustain the 25 objection again. 00970 { 4:53:16pm} 01 MR. SCHOENTHALER: May I make one last comment, Your 02 Honor? 03 THE COURT: Sure. 04 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Do you have that document, the 05 pretrial order? 06 MR. PLOURDE: The pretrial order? 07 MR. SCHOENTHALER: Your Honor, I'll just state it. 08 The pretrial order speaks for itself. However, there is a 09 semicolon -- or a comma, and after the comma, when it discusses 10 the history document that we put up on screen, it says 11 specifically as to the origin of the book, of The Urantia Book, 12 and I think that is pretty -- giving them pretty good notice. 13 They chose not to take her deposition. We did not prejudice 14 them ourselves because we had no idea. 15 He makes a statement that she authored -- that she 16 co-authored that book. I believe she testified she wrote it 17 and Carolyn read it. Now, Ms. Newsom wrote that herself. She 18 never told anybody, including the people she was working with 19 at Urantia Foundation, she had these documents. Urantia 20 Foundation did not hold back any documents. Are you kidding 21 me? Do you think we wouldn't want to have that document in the 22 record at this point? 23 And I think really the issue is that he somewhat questions 24 her credibility based on the -- that some of these things are 25 not in the history, and that goes to the weight, Your Honor, 00971 { 4:53:16pm} 01 not to the admissibility. 02 Thank you, Your Honor. 03 THE COURT: Now then, gentlemen, I've resustained the 04 objection. 05 We have an additional matter I think I allowed somebody to 06 reserve the right to make a -- at the close of all the evidence 07 -- or at the close of the plaintiff's evidence I think 08 counselor reserved the right to make a record at the end of the 09 case. Am I correct about that, counselor? 10 MR. ABOWITZ: Yes. 11 THE COURT: All right. Who wants to do so? 12 MR. HILL: I think -- 13 MR. PLOURDE: I wonder if we could take just a brief 14 recess, Your Honor. I'll be much more comfortable making that 15 if I can just go to the rest room. 16 THE COURT: All right. We'll take five minutes then 17 and come back. Court's in recess. 18 (A RECESS WAS HAD, AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS 19 WERE HAD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE 20 JURY:) 21 THE COURT: Be seated. 22 Who's going first? 23 MR. PLOURDE: Your Honor, at this point Michael 24 Foundation and McMullan move for a directed verdict with 25 respect to the validity of the copyright. 00972 { 5:04:00pm} 01 THE COURT: I think technically it's now a motion as 02 a matter of law but -- or for judgment as a matter of law. I 03 understand the directed verdict. 04 MR. PLOURDE: You're right, Judge. I'm sure Mr. Hill 05 can cite the rule to you too. 06 Judge, as I understand the decision tree here, it's gotten 07 a lot more simple from the time that we started. The issue 08 here is the copyright and we don't have to worry about the 09 first branch of the decision tree, whether or not it's human 10 authors -- the patient is the author or celestial beings are 11 the author of the book. We're dealing with a human author. 12 And the two ways that they claim their copyright is valid, is, 13 one, that it's a composite work and, two, that it's a 14 commissioned work. And we submit that either way they can't 15 win. 16 The first issue on composite work. Your Honor, we believe 17 that we've adequately briefed the issue of whether one person 18 can be a composite work -- excuse me -- one person can create a 19 composite work under the 1909 act. We've submitted case after 20 case after case that says they can't, authority after authority 21 that says they can't, and we think it's clear that one person 22 doing his own writings can't create a composite work. 23 There is not only a number of cases that we've cited but I 24 think the rationale is valid. The rationale primarily behind 25 the composite work definition or composite work provision under 00973 { 5:05:46pm} 01 the 1909 act was that if you have -- and I think Mr. Hill has 02 said this -- if you have a half dozen authors that have 03 contributed works to a periodical or encyclopedia or whatever, 04 in order to renew that, you'd have to go out and get all those 05 people to sign up and renew the copyright. When it's only one 06 author, you don't have that problem, and there's no reason not 07 to require that one author to come in. 08 I think, as I said, the case law makes it fairly clear 09 that under the 1909 act a composite work doesn't rise to where 10 the contributions are submitted by one author and there's no 11 evidence that it's anything else here. 12 Even if one author could by themselves create a composite 13 work, this isn't it. Their testimony, their own admissions by 14 witness after witness after witness is that this is a unified 15 work. That you can't separate it out. It would be like 16 cutting up the Mona Lisa, I think is what one of their trustees 17 said, or taking a single piece of a puzzle out of the puzzle. 18 And I think that really says it all. So, even if one person 19 can create a composite work, their own admissions establish 20 that this isn't it. 21 With respect to the commissioned work, Your Honor, I think 22 the evidence is fairly clear, and I've seen your current draft 23 of an instruction on a commissioned work. Just kind of going 24 down through the tests that you enumerated, Judge, I think who 25 has control of the means of production here, I think it's 00974 { 5:07:44pm} 01 fairly clear from the evidence, and even their own evidence, 02 that it wasn't The Contact Commission. Whether the work was 03 created at the commissioning party's insistence and expense. 04 What we have is testimony that the revelators initiated 05 this process. The Contact Commission didn't go to the 06 patient. The Contact Commission didn't go to the revelators. 07 The revelators, according to them, initiated this process. The 08 revelators called for questions and asked them, "Give us some 09 questions, we'll give you answers." The revelators decided 10 when the work was done. The revelators decided when the work 11 would be published. That's been the testimony here. And what 12 it really comes down to is that all of that was coming through 13 the patient. There wasn't any communication with the 14 revelators other than through the patient. And I don't think 15 that it's appropriate to say that The Contact Commission 16 controlled the process when the only thing that they were doing 17 was, according to their own evidence, reacting to instructions 18 that they got through the patient and they believed from the 19 revelators. 20 Whether the commissioning party possessed or exercised the 21 right to direct the manner in which the work was done, though 22 actual exercise of that right is not controlling. Again, you 23 know, I think their testimony has been consistently that the 24 revelators did that and, again, it was through the patient and 25 it wasn't them. 00975 { 5:09:30pm} 01 Whether the commissioning party supplied capital for the 02 production of the work. I think, Judge, this is an area that 03 needs work on this particular instruction because it's not 04 clear what Your Honor would be referring to as far as capital 05 for the production of the work, but it's clear that the author 06 of this was the patient and they didn't provide any capital to 07 the patient. There's no testimony that they provided any 08 capital to enable the patient to bring about the writing of 09 this work. I think all their evidence goes to is what happened 10 after they got possession of the transcript and the fact that 11 they paid to publish it later on, and I don't think that's 12 sufficient. 13 And whether the preparer was hired as an employee to do 14 the work. Well, it was the other way around. This started 15 off, at least, as a doctor/patient relationship and the patient 16 hired the doctor to help him. There's no evidence to establish 17 that the patient was hired to bring about this work. 18 So, we think it's clear under the evidence that it's not a 19 commissioned work. It can't be a composite work because we 20 only have one author, and even if we had more than one author, 21 their own admissions are that it's a unified work. If it's not 22 a composite work, it's not a commissioned work, then it's a 23 unified work by the patient. Even if the patient assigned his 24 interest in that common-law copyright and they properly 25 registered the initial copyright, the patient, under Section 00976 { 5:11:12pm} 01 304 of the Copyright Act, or his heirs or assigns -- excuse me 02 -- statutory heirs or next-of-kin, there's a couple of 03 exceptions, would have to come forward. The only evidence is 04 that the copyright was renewed by Urantia Foundation and 05 they've offered nothing to show that Urantia Foundation is one 06 of those statutory parties that are entitled to renew. 07 Based on that, Judge, we'd ask you to enter judgment as a 08 matter of law. 09 THE COURT: I'll call on counsel to respond. I think 10 we'll keep them separate, let you respond, and then move, if 11 you wish to do so, for your own judgment. 12 MR. HILL: Okay, as long as the second motion can be 13 brief and just incorporate most of what I'm about to do, Judge. 14 I'll take them in his order. The composite work. I'd 15 like to cite the Nimmer treatise for the proposition that a 16 collective work and a composite work are one in the same for 17 purposes of Section 304 of the 1976 act which is the governing 18 renewal provision in this case, Judge. We also found a case in 19 the District of Oregon called DeLendon v. Brinn (sp), 1982 20 Westlaw 1162, I believe is that cite, that uses these terms, 21 composite work and collective work, interchangeably. Of 22 course, a collective work includes the collected writings of a 23 single person or author. 24 As to the unified nature of the work, I think there's 25 certainly a fact issue for the jury to decide on that at a 00977 { 5:12:59pm} 01 minimum. For starters, the papers are papers and they're not 02 chapters. The evidence suggested showed that there are entire 03 conferences and study sessions devoted to single papers. 04 Seminars are taught on single papers. That is not true, I 05 submit, of a single chapter from John Grisham's latest novel. 06 There was some evidence of both -- of the parts, papers 07 and stories within The Urantia Book standing alone. Now, it 08 may very well be that there is a larger broader context to be 09 understood if you accept the proposition that the book is what 10 it purports to be, which is a divine revelation, but at the 11 same time asking people who have that belief whether or not the 12 book is a unified work and having them say "yes" and asking 13 them questions about inviolate text, which is a requirement of 14 the Declaration of Trust, really doesn't advance the ball in 15 terms of showing the intrinsic nature of the work itself. 16 We look, for example, just at why we're here, which is 17 that Mr. McMullan has broken off a part of The Urantia Book and 18 printed it as a separate work because, as he testified, it can 19 stand alone. Urantia Foundation exhibit 36, Mr. McMullan's 20 description of Jesus - A New Revelation, it is a complete 21 biography of Jesus. He testified that it works well without 22 the entire book. 23 We would also point to the testimony that they introduced 24 regarding the fact that under their view of the case the Jesus 25 papers had a separate origin that came after all of the other 00978 { 5:14:54pm} 01 papers, almost in the nature of a sequel. To that extent, we 02 would also submit that there's more evidence in the record 03 regarding whether or not this book and its component parts may 04 be viewed by the jury as a collective work. 05 We would also point out that there was evidence in the 06 case regarding compilation of information from human sources in 07 connection with each of these papers. Remember, this is a 08 unique process. Each of these papers are created independent. 09 The papers are studied by The Forum independently. A paper 10 would be looked at, more questions would be asked, and those 11 questions would serve as further building blocks for additional 12 content within that paper. 13 It's relatively clear from the Helen Carlson testimony by 14 deposition that she took a paper, she asked a question, and a 15 week later she saw a new form of that paper and it incorporated 16 the answer to the question that she had asked. 17 The human -- There are human source materials such as the 18 Bible and the Weyman work that we heard some evidence from that 19 further suggest that this is -- this can be viewed as a 20 reference work from a standpoint that it does gather the, you 21 know, materials from 2,000 different sources. Ms. Newsom 22 testified that she in college used the book as a reference 23 book. And I would submit that those are indications that the 24 book may meet the legal definition of an encyclopedic work. 25 The book has a composite presentation and feel. On page 00979 { 5:16:42pm} 01 1005 of the book it describes itself as a composite 02 presentation. There are, of course, 58 claimed authors in the 03 titles of the papers. And, frankly, the coverage of the book 04 is extensive. I think we heard testimony from many of the 05 witnesses in this case regarding all of the different subject 06 matter that is covered in The Urantia Book. And, again, that 07 goes to the special class of composite works that are 08 cyclopedic works. 09 Finally, Your Honor, with respect to selection and 10 arrangement by the compiling entity, these papers are being 11 received as a part of a fluid process. Each paper, starting 12 with the early versions, the first paper and then the second 57 13 papers that came, they were received one by one by The Contact 14 Commission, the evidence shows. They were always maintained in 15 the custody of The Contact Commission. The Contact Commission 16 had control over the manner in which they ultimately were 17 compiled and published as a single unit. It may very well be 18 that The Contact Commission believed that they were acting from 19 divine instructions or celestial instructions in the course of 20 doing that; however, I would submit that the law would not take 21 regard of the source of the inspiration per the Garman v. 22 Sterling decision that I provided the Court earlier today. 23 The Bowman diaries and the testimony of Carolyn Kendall on 24 this matter is instructive. The material was not -- as it 25 exists in The Urantia Book is not in the same order in which it 00980 { 5:18:31pm} 01 was presented and studied during the formative years of The 02 Urantia Book. 03 In addition, we'd point out that as of 1937, according to 04 the Bowman diaries, there were 126 papers and they totaled over 05 3,000 typed pages. Using some basic math, you would conclude 06 from that that there were to be 5,000 typed pages when there 07 were 196 papers; however, even accounting for some 08 reformatting, I think there's still an inference that some 09 material was reduced or taken out before the book was 10 published. 11 The Richard Keeler testimony was that there were numerous 12 amounts of material that was taken down by Ms. Christensen in 13 these sessions other than the early versions of the papers, 14 those first 57 papers that were taken down originally in 15 stenography and served as the foundation basis for more 16 questions until finally complete 196 papers appeared and 17 appeared in the handwriting of the patient. There were 18 numerous sessions that continued all the way up until the book 19 was published, and the contents of those sessions may or may 20 not have been included in what was ultimately published. And 21 the persons making that decision, of course, were The Contact 22 Commission. And that material did not make it into the book. 23 Finally, we would point to the fact that the questions on 24 each paper contributed in a material way to the internal 25 content and arrangement of each of the papers. And that 00981 { 5:20:11pm} 01 summarizes our position on the composite work issue, Judge. 02 Collective work. I'll hopefully be a little more to the 03 point. The insistence and expense test, there is evidence to 04 meet both of those prongs. Insistence is proven in at least 05 two ways based on the evidence. There is at least an inference 06 that The Contact Commission began asking questions and that is 07 how this process began. It may very well be that they were 08 challenged by revelators or anyone else to ask more challenging 09 questions but the evidence shows that there were questions that 10 preceded this, that there were questions that drove this 11 process from start to finish over a number of years. There is 12 also the persistence. The Mind of Mischief identifies 250 13 contact sessions during the first 18 years, and, of course, 14 that book was published in 1929 and the evidence supports the 15 inference that these contact sessions continued until at least 16 1942 when the final genetic questions were asked by the Contact 17 Commission to the subject. 18 So, we believe that based upon that, there is a strong 19 inference of insistence and we'd point to Yardley v. Houghton 20 Mifflin as just an example where solicitation of a work does 21 meet the insistence prong. 22 As far as expense of the work, in Murray v. Gelderman, a 23 corporation approached a writer, a freelance cook, professional 24 cook or chef, and asked her to compile or to create a bunch of 25 menus of New Orleans style cuisine. They gave her complete 00982 { 5:22:04pm} 01 artistic freedom in the course of doing that and agreed that 02 she would retain editorial control. However, the corporation 03 paid for the expenses of publishing the book when she brought 04 it back to them and the court found that that was the 05 significant factor in deciding that the book was, in fact, a 06 commissioned work, notwithstanding the fact that the chef 07 retained at all time artistic control and freedom over the 08 contents of what she handed back to the corporation. 09 We'd point to Michael Foundation exhibit 8, our exhibit 16 10 and 82, for the proposition that The Contact Commission bore 11 the expense associated with this particular project. 12 On the right to direct or supervise, there's an 13 interesting quote, Judge, in Yardley v. Houghton Mifflin where 14 they talk about the copyright vesting in the commissioned party 15 who has no intention of overseeing the detailed activity of any 16 employee hired for the very purpose of producing the material. 17 Now, of course, we're talking about a voluntary effort here. 18 But, nevertheless, that particular prong in the Reeder case, in 19 Town of Clarkstown v. Reeder, was met because the town had 20 meetings with the person who was writing this youth court 21 manual and the town also had meetings with other officials 22 where they gathered ideas that they then took back to this 23 person and submitted to him. The court in Reeder said that 24 that was -- that under those circumstances the power to control 25 and supervise was implicit. 00983 { 5:23:44pm} 01 We also point out that based upon the evidence that I've 02 already referred to regarding selection and arrangement, 03 The Contact Commission was always in control of these 04 manuscripts and ultimately controlled whether or not to publish 05 them. 06 The next factor is the supplying of the capital to finance 07 the publication of the work. And, indeed, pointing again to 08 the Murray decision, we would indicate that there is evidence 09 in the record that we meet that prong. 10 Lastly, just a note on compensation to the subject or 11 absence thereof. Professor Nimmer writes in his treatise, "One 12 may be an employee if the writing is done as an accommodation 13 with no compensation at all." Mr. Keeler and Mr. Kendall -- 14 Ms. Kendall both relayed that the subject was aware of the 15 project, was shown the papers, and did not object. And there 16 is a strong inference from the length of this process and the 17 numerous sessions in which the subject participated that this 18 was totally voluntary and the subject knew that The Contact 19 Commission was holding the copyright as the commissioning party 20 in that relationship. 21 THE COURT: All right. The plaintiff's motion for 22 judgment as a matter of law will be denied. 23 Now you may present your argument for whatever motion that 24 you wish to make, counsel. 25 MR. HILL: Well, first of all, Judge, I have not seen 00984 { 5:25:21pm} 01 the Court's latest charge to know whether or not the 02 proprietorship issue that was decided in Urantia Foundation's 03 favor on summary judgment is in play or is not in play, but we 04 would certainly take the position citing the Nimmer treatise, 05 Burton and Maaherra, that the mere possession of the 06 manuscripts in an unpublished form combined with the later 07 registration of statutory copyright and no evidence whatsoever 08 that the subject ever protested is prima facie evidence, and in 09 this case, because of a lack of any evidence on the intent of 10 the subject, is dispositive evidence of the proprietorship 11 issue, and would move for judgment as a matter of law on that 12 issue for starters. 13 Secondly, we would move for directed verdict or judgment 14 as a matter of law with respect to the composite work issue 15 pointing again to the very same evidence that I pointed out in 16 refuting their motion. 17 And we would move for judgment as a matter of law on the 18 commissioned work theory and we would cite -- we would cite -- 19 initially we would cite the Town of Clarkstown v. Reeder case. 20 Just to go into a little bit more detail than what I went 21 into in refuting their motion, the court in that case addressed 22 a situation where there were ongoing discussions between the 23 town and Reeder about the drafting of a youth court manual. 24 The manual was compiled by Mr. Reeder from ideas and 25 suggestions of others in the town government. There was 00985 { 5:27:07pm} 01 monitoring of some of Reeder's expression of his own thoughts, 02 and there was also monitoring by the town of expression of the 03 thoughts and ideas of others separate and apart from that 04 process. 05 There was no evidence, according to the court in Reeder, 06 that there were actual orders made by the town government 07 regarding what Reeder needed to include in the content or 08 format of the book. And it was undenied in that case that 09 Mr. Reeder was working as a volunteer throughout the process. 10 Under those circumstances, the court found that the work was a 11 work for hire/commissioned work and entered judgment on behalf 12 of the town accordingly. 13 And we would submit that our facts fit closest to Reeder 14 among all of the cases that I'm aware of in the commissioned 15 works and works-for-hire arena, and we'd move for judgment as a 16 matter of law on that basis. 17 Thank you, Judge. 18 THE COURT: I think I'll save a response and deny the 19 motion for judgment as a matter of law. My rule on the 20 proprietorship issue, I treated that motion as a motion to 21 reconsider, and that likewise has been denied, and my order is 22 available for distribution, I think, on that limited issue. 23 So, you gentlemen work with my lawyer on instructions. 24 Get all of the conflicts resolved, if you can. If you can't, 25 why, we'll resolve them in the morning. 00986 { 5:28:38pm} 01 Go ahead, Mr. Plourde. 02 MR. PLOURDE: Just a housekeeping matter, Your 03 Honor. Our exhibit 1 that's been introduced into evidence is 04 inadvertently missing one page that I'd like to supplement. I 05 talked with opposing counsel and they don't have any problem. 06 THE COURT: No problem? 07 MR. HILL: No objection. 08 THE COURT: That'll be done. 09 Okay, gentlemen, anything else? 10 I would still urge you, even though we're getting toward 11 the end of this trial, I'd urge you to consider the 12 possibilities of trying to resolve it short of the completed 13 trial, and I'll see you in the morning. 14 Court's in recess. 15 (THE EVENING RECESS WAS TAKEN) 16 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME VI) 17 18