Religious Persecution Alert: Two religions using secular law for religious persecution, assistance needed!

Alarming legal precedents may soon be set in two cases involving religions in U.S. District Court in Colorado. These cases involve two separate religions perversely twisting copyright, trade secret and trademark law so as to turn these laws into a form of "state sanctioned" instruments of religious persecution.

To understand the potential impact of these lawsuits you will need to imagine for a moment what would have happened historically if the Catholic Church had stopped Martin Luther (founder of the modern day Lutheran faith) from opposing the Catholic Church or from forming a new religious faith, by twisting copyright, trade secret and trademark laws to sue Martin Luther's efforts out of existence. (Please note several hundred years ago these laws did not exist as they do now; this example is meant only metaphorically to illuminate a complex present-day legal problem. The following is not historically accurate nor is it meant to be an offensive religious comment on any aspects the period of the Lutheran Reformation and/or the Catholic church. It is ONLY meant to help explain what is happening in these two court cases.)

Imagine the leaders of the Catholic Church viewing Martin Luther as an apostate reformer challenging their religious authority and monopoly over their members, and deciding that every power on earth or in heaven that could be used to stop and punish him should be used. Thus, they first excommunicate him to disparage and spiritually punish him. Then they take their religious agenda to stop and punish Martin Luther into the secular courts. They find the best lawyers in the land and tell them: "find a way to use the secular laws to stop and punish Martin Luther no matter what it costs or takes."

Now imagine that the Catholic Church's crafty lawyers and enormous cash availability could twist and abuse secular copyright, trade secret, and trademark laws to sue Martin Luther in such a way as to completely censor his criticism and halt his reformation of the Catholic Church. They trademark the crucifix, images of Jesus and the saints, and key religious words.

Then they turn the key concepts of the faith into trade secrets - religious secrets that only approved Catholics can use. Now Martin Luther is so restricted by the courts application of religiously twisted secular law, it is impossible for him to exercise his spiritual and religious freedoms without going into contempt of the courts interpretations and enforcement of these secular laws.

Now imagine that the well-financed Catholic Church running on its impassioned religious agenda could additionally twist and abuse secular copyright, trade secret and trademark laws to sue Martin Luther in such a way as to further affect a complete destruction of his fledgling reformation organization merely because of the huge financial and human resource drain the onerous, religiously motivated lawsuit generates.

Now imagine the Catholic Church and its lawyers have been successful in the courts. Their successful use of the states secular laws for their religious agenda has enforced the Catholic Church's European religious monopoly and has enforced Catholic religious purity, authority and orthodoxy on both Martin Luther and through Martin Luther's defeat on the general religious public as well.

If this could have been done several hundred years ago at the time of Martin Luther none of the dozens of other religions that have broke off from the Catholic and Lutheran faiths would exist today. And, the world would be much poorer because of this lack of religious diversity.

Although this parallel is not exact, it is parallel in regards to the issues of using secular copyright, trade secret and trademark laws for religious agendas that crush the religious freedom of religious reformers and religious critics. These two cases [1. Religious Technology Center a California non-profit corporation and Bridge Publications Inc, a California non-profit corporation, (AKA Scientology) Plaintiff v. F.A.C.T.Net Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation; Lawrence Wollersheim an Individual and Bob Penny an Individual, defendants, (Civil Action No. 95-K-2143), and 2. Urantia Foundation Plaintiff v. Erik Schaveland and Kristen Maahera, (Civil Action No. 96-D-20040] have raised important questions regarding:

1. Can a non-profit religious organization that is given special state protected religious freedom and other special state sanctioned religious sanctuary class and tax privileges and protections, use the state's secular for-profit business law to carry out a religious agenda that creates a type of state "sanctioned" religious persecution?

2. Were secular for-profit business trade secret, trademark and copyright laws ever intended or designed (under any stretch of the imagination or intention of the creators of these laws,) to:

• inhibit religious freedom,
• help one church establish a state "sanctioned" monopoly over competitive churches,
• help enforce a state "sanctioned" religious authority, orthodoxy and purity,
• help enforce a state "sanctioned" form of religious censorship,
• help enforce a secular type of state "sanctioned" "religious" punishment of apostates,
• become a state "sanctioned" force to crush fledgling religious reform groups, or
• help favor one religion over another?

3. Should proven religious persecution practices by a state established religion be cause for the immediate removal of its U.S. IRS religious based non-profit tax status?

4. Is there a point where the many legitimate and valid uses for-profit business trade secret, trademark and copyright laws can be twisted to a point that they become improper or illegal. And, is that point when it becomes apparent that the intent behind enforcing these laws acts to deny the senior constitutionally protected rights and protections expressed in (a-g) above?

WE NEED YOUR HELP. THESE TWO CASES RAISE CRITICAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE POWER ISSUES

1. These cases could be lost in the next few months in summary judgement motions. The individual defendants (the religious reformers and religious critics) are grossly under-financed.

2. Get informed by getting more information on these cases. The Wollersheim, and Penny case involves the infamous and litigious Church of Scientology. For more information on Scientology see:

• www.factnet.org
• dianetics.html

For more information on the Erik Schaveland and Kristen Maahera case see:

• www.ubook.org
• www.ubfellowship.org
• www.thegrid.net/desertrock/norm/

3. Please actively promote awareness and discussion of these cases by distributing and posting this alert to all Internet and non Internet newsgroups, organizations or individuals who would have an interest at steak in protecting religious freedom AND the separation of church and state powers.

4. Use your personal networks to ask the legal departments of any religious or non religious organization that has an interest in protecting religious freedom AND in maintaining the separation of church and state powers to prepare and file Amicus Curae (Friends of the Court) briefs in Colorado District court in support of Bob Penny , Lawrence Wollersheim, in the first case and Erik Schaveland and Kristen Maahera in the second case in their fight for religious freedom.

If you need to contact either case regarding the Amicus Curae briefs or other matters contact Lawrence Wollersheim, (manage@factnet.org) or send mail to Lawrence Wollersheim c/o PO Box 1314 Ignacio, CO. 80307

For further information in the Erik Schaveland and Kristen Maahera case e-mail (colinm@earthlink.net): or write the
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF URANTIANS FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
BOX 11227, BOULDER CO, 80301,
OR FAX INQUIRIES TO (303) 516 1412.

Lawrence Wollersheim IMHO
Personally