July 07, 2010: Amanda Dunne-Porter with AMAZON’S CreateSpace Executive Customer Relations contacted author David Robinson and reported that “We received notice from a third party regarding copyright concerns over the following titles:”

• “The Betrayal of Mary Baker Eddy: By the Christian Science Church,” ISBN 1448686539
• “The Betrayal of Mary Baker Eddy: Articles on Appeal,” ISBN 1448689236
• “The Betrayal of Mary Baker Eddy: Exhibits on Appeal” ISBN 1448689538

• “Witness to Truth I: the Reformation of the Church leading to the Coming of the Christ,” ISBN 1449521738
• “Witness to Truth II: The Science of the Christ outlined in the Revelation of St. John,” ISBN 1449519342
• “Witness to Truth III: the History of Civilization foretold in the Prophecies of Daniel,” ISBN 1449501664

• “A Metaphysical Outline of the Revelation of St. John,” ISBN 1449556450

Amanda told Robinson after the fact that “we do not involve ourselves in third party disputes and therefore have removed the availability of the titles through our systems until this matter is resolved.”

Amanda assured Robinson in good faith that “once a resolution has been reached between both parties concerning the title, please contact us via ecr@createspace.com so that we may take the appropriate action regarding the titles.”

Robinson replied to Amanda at once and told her that “I was not aware of any problem” and that “I have responded to several attacks from this law firm in the past and each time they have backed down.” “I have had court issues with the Directors of the Church in the past, and just recently, and I will do what I can to resolve this issue.”

In Commerce, everything must be stated in Truth.

I, David Everett Robinson, a Private Person, a Living Soul, a Creditor, Claimant, and Secured Party upon the land of Maine, a Republic in the county called Cumberland, AUTHOR OF MARY BAKER EDDY DISOBEYED, and NOT a STATUTORY PERSON, do hereby solemnly declare, say, and state. (a) Secured Party is competent for stating the matters set forth herewith; (b) Secured Party has personal knowledge about the facts stated herein; (c) Everything stated in this TRUTH AFFIDAVIT is the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth and all stated is true, correct, complete, and not misleading. NO THIRD PARTIES ALLOWED.

PLAIN STATEMENT ABOUT THE FACTS:

(a) For Resolving a Matter it must be expressed (b) In Commerce Truth is Sovereign; (c) Truth is expressed in the Affidavit Form; (d) An Unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce; (e) An Unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce; (f) A Truth Affidavit, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied by a Rebuttal about the Truth Affidavit, point for point, by payment, by agreement, by resolution by a jury according by the rules for Common Law.

A LAWFUL CONTRACT has: (1) Offer; (2) Consideration; (3) Acceptance by all Parties for the Contract and; (4) The Signatures by all Parties involved with the Contract. Only the parties signing the Contract can participate in the discussion of the Contract. Full disclosure about the CONTRACT is imperative.

THE FACTS

(1) December 23, 2008: Mother Church Counsel Kevin Ness demanded that Robinson “find titles for your publications that do not include the words ‘Christian Science Monitor.’”

(2) January 6, 2009: Robinson accepted Kevin Ness’s demand to “find titles for your publications that do not include the words ‘Christian Science Monitor’” and renamed his publication: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BEACON OF BRUNSWICK, MAINE . . .

. . . and claimed the right to call himself: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE PRACTITIONER OF BRUNSWICK, MAINE . . . and . . .

. . . that it is his understanding that the “Christian Science Family of 10 Marks” that cannot be used without the permission of the church are:

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE JOURNAL
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SENTINEL
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE HERALD
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SUNDAY SCHOOLS
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE LECTURES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE READING ROOMS
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CHURCHES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS

(3) January 15, 2009: In response to a second letter from Kevin Ness dated January 14, 2009, Robinson claimed his right to refer to himself as a CHRISTIAN SCIENCE PRACTITIONER and CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MENTOR and to name his publication CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BEACON OF BRUNSWICK, MAINE . . . unless Kevin Ness proved to him that the descriptive adjective and term “CHRISTIAN SCIENCE” is NOT in the public domain.

Robinson asked Kevin Ness to confirm within 30 days that he agrees that the adjective and term “CHRISTIAN SCIENCE” is now in the public domain, and that he will “hassle” Robinson no more, and that his silence on this issue will be taken as his assent.

Kevin Ness agreed by his silence that the adjective and term “CHRISTIAN SCIENCE” is now in the public domain, and that he will “hassle” Robinson no more.

THIS ISSUE WAS THEN DEEMED CLOSED.

(4) April 13, 2009: Robinson responded to New York Trademark Attorney Ronald Meister’s letter of April 10, 2009 stating that he [Robinson] believes that his use of the terms . . . CS Mentor of Brunswick, Maine and CS Beacon of Brunswick, Maine . . . are not an imitation of the “Christian Science Family of Marks” nor are they confusingly similar to them any more than the following independent terms and domain names used by others:

Christian Science Links
Christian Science Today
Christian Science Homes
Christian Science University
Christian Science Endtime Center
Christian Science Church of Transfiguration
christianscience.net
christianscience.org
christiansciencelinks.com
christiansciencehomes.org
christiansciencelibrary.com
cslibrary.com
csandme.com
csinafrica.com
cspractice.com
csdirectory.com
csfirstlessons.com
csindependent.com

. . . and that he would be happy to comply with Meister’s request if Meister persuades these others to do likewise.

Robinson asked Meister to provide documented evidence that the adjective and term “Christian Science” is not a generic term being used in the public domain.

Ronald Meister failed to provide such evidence and agreed by his silence that the adjective and term “Christian Science” is a generic term in the public domain.

THIS ISSUE WAS THEN DEEMED CLOSED.

(5) July 8, 2009: Robinson established the website christian-science-institute.org

(6) August 27, 2009: Robinson established the following websties:

christianscienceinstitute.com
christianscienceinstitute.net
christianscienceinstitute.org

(7) February 11, 2010: Ronald Meister once again claimed that these website titles infringe on the “Christian Science Family of Marks” even though this issue was deemed closed. ( 3)

(8) February 17, 2010: Robinson stated that “I would be happy to answer your clients complaint point by point on the condition that they answer my complaint recorded in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in Boston, Massachusetts point by point.”

Re: David E. Robinson v. Christian Science Board of Directors, 2008-P-0583.

Ronald Meister failed to respond and therefor left the field of battle in default.

THIS ISSUE WAS THEN DEEMED CLOSED.

(9) April 10, 2010: Ronald Meister violated Robinson’s right to due process by drafting AMAZON.COM as a third party to his complaint, without Robinson’s prior knowledge nor consent, whereby AMAZON.COM accepted Ronald Meister’s draft and became involved as a third party in this dispute.

(10) July 07, 2010: Amanda Dunne-Porter with AMAZON’S CreateSpace Executive Customer Relations contacted Robinson and reported that “We received notice from a third party regarding copyright concerns over the following titles:”

• “The Betrayal of Mary Baker Eddy: By the Christian Science Church,” ISBN 1448686539
• “The Betrayal of Mary Baker Eddy: Articles on Appeal,” ISBN 1448689236
• “The Betrayal of Mary Baker Eddy: Exhibits on Appeal” ISBN 1448689538

• “Witness to Truth I: the Reformation of the Church leading to the Coming of the Christ,” ISBN 1449521738
• “Witness to Truth II: The Science of the Christ outlined in the Revelation of St. John,” ISBN 1449519342
• “Witness to Truth III: the History of Civilization foretold in the Prophecies of Daniel,” ISBN 1449501664

• “A Metaphysical Outline of the Revelation of St. John,” ISBN 1449556450

Amanda told Robinson after the fact that “we do not involve ourselves in third party disputes and therefore have removed the availability of the titles through our systems until this matter is resolved.”

Amanda assured Robinson in good faith that “once a resolution has been reached between both parties concerning the title, please contact us via ecr@createspace.com so that we may take the appropriate action regarding the titles.”

Robinson replied to Amanda at once and told her that “I was not aware of any problem” and that “I have responded to several attacks from this law firm in the past and each time they have backed down.” “I have had court issues with the Directors of the Church in the past, and just recently, and I will do what I can to resolve this issue.”

(11) July 9, 2010: Robinson wrote to Ronald W. Meister and claimed that his claims “upon my good character are totally unacceptable and give documented evidence that the Directors in question form a pattern and scheme of repeated fraudulent allegations against me.”

. . . and that “the several Titles that you complain of have been and are now filed in the Public Records of the Courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as EXHIBITS in the Boston Probate Court in Docket No. 10E0045 :

DAVID E. ROBINSON v. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

. . . and that “Your unannounced attack on me and the publishers of my books regarding THE BETRAYAL OF MARY BAKER EDDY BY THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CHURCH not only injures me and my reputation, but also provides documented evidence that gives me STANDING in the court in this case in my regard.”

Robinson repeated his offer of February 17, 2010 that he would “be happy to answer your clients complaint point by point on the condition that they answer my complaint recorded in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in Boston, Massachusetts point by point.”

(12) July 10, 2010. Robinson asked Meister to clarify the objections that he has made by supplying the specific Chapters, Pages, and phrases in each of Robinson’s books that he objects to in order to verify with documented evidence that his allegations are correct.

Robinson stated that he expects to hear from Meister with a reply within 10 days. Otherwise Robinson will ask AMAZON to restore the publications of his books.

. . . and that he stands on the basis of the following facts:

Ronald Meister’s unannounced attack on him and AMAZON.COM regarding THE BETRAYAL OF MARY BAKER EDDY BY THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CHURCH not only injures him and his reputation, but also provided documented evidence which confirms that he has STANDING in the courts in this regard.

And that:

(12.1) There is no evidence that David Robinson did not offer his first “Witness to Truth” book to the Christian Science Publishing Society in 1988 of which they made no complaint but declined to accept for publication, and that he believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.2) There is no evidence that Ronald W. Meister could bypass his civil right-to-due-process and interfere with his private business affairs by going behind his back and drafting AMAZON.COM to be come involved, without violating Robinson’s civil rights, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.3) There is no evidence that Robinson has not been financially injured and harassed by the actions of Ronald W. Meister and Meister’s unauthorized Clients at the Christian Science Church Center in Boston, and he believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.4) There is no evidence that the so-called “trademark owners” are not members of a long line of Directors of the Christian Science Mother Church who have usurped the Manual-authorized control devised by the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker G. Eddy, in violation of The Manual and her Real Estate Deeds of Trust, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.5) There is no evidence that the actions of Ronald W. Meister and his unauthorized Clients are not attempting to continue the fraudulent perpetuation of their crimes by silencing all public dissent such as the court-action-accounts documented in THE BETRAYAL OF MARY BAKER EDDY BY THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CHURCH, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.6) There is no evidence that the actions of Ronald W. Meister and his unauthorized Clients do not provide Robinson with “standing” to take further defensive action in this regard in a court of law or through the administrative process sanctioned under the UCC.

(12.7) There is no evidence that the Christian Science Board of Directors alleged trademark of the “Christian Science Family of Names” encompasses also the generic term “Christian Science” since the generic term “Christian Science” has been and is in the Public Domain.

(12.8) There is no evidence that the claim has not been made that Robinson is infringing the Christian Science Board of Directors trademark by using the term “Christian Science,” and he believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.9) There is no evidence that Robinson’s book titles are in any way connected with the so-called “Christian Science Family of Marks,” and he believes that no such evidence exists

(12.10) There is no evidence that the creator of a thing cannot control the thing and that Robinson cannot act as the authorized representative of the fictional commercial entity he devised and named “Christian Science Institute of Science and Health” and he believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.11) There is no evidence that Robinson agreed to be permanently barred from making use of the term “Christian Science” which exists in the public domain for everyone to use and he believes that no such evidence exists.1) There is no evidence that the Christian Science Board of Directors of The Mother Church is authorized by “The Manual of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, which is adapted to the Mother Church only” to claim any authorized interest in its trademarks contrary to Mary Baker G. Eddy’s expressly documented intent, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.12) There is no evidence that Robinson has not been told that if he removes the offending trademark “Christian Science” from his books that he would be free to sell his books through AMAZON.COM once again” and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.13) There is no evidence that an unrebutted affidavit does not become judgement in commerce, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.14) There is no evidence that a claim cannot be satisfied by counter affidavit point by point, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

(12.15) There is no evidence that he who leaves the field of battle first does not lose by default, and Robinson believes that no such evidence exists.

Ronald Meister once again fails to respond and therefor leaves the field of battle in default.

THIS ISSUE WAS THEN DEEMED CLOSED.

(13) Robinson believes that the pictures in question are pictures found in the public domain on the internet and in published books.

(14) Robinson cannot acknowledge the Christian Science Board of Directors priority of rights in the Christian Science Marks.

(15) Robinson cannot acknowledge the Christian Science Board of Directors priority of rights in the so-called Mother Church.

BACKGROUND:

(16) On July 4th, 1876, Mary Baker Eddy and six of her students organized the first Christian Science Association.

(17) In 1879, Mary Baker Eddy and her students voted to organize a church without creed to be called the “Church of Christ, Scientist.”

(18) The “Church of Christ, Scientist” exercised no centralized control over other Christian Science Churches or Christian Scientists.

(19) In 1889, Mary Baker Eddy dissolved the “Church of Christ, Scientist.

(20) On September 1, 1892, Mary Baker Eddy conveyed by legal Deed of Trust a transfer of land “for Church Edifice” to four trustees “to be known as the Christian Science board of Directors...a perpetual body or corporation.”

(21) “This deed of conveyance [was] made upon express trust and conditions.”

(22) These restrictive covenants had to be strictly obeyed as the conditions of the congregation’s use of the land on which the church edifice was to be built.

(23) In 1903-1904, via several legal Deeds of Trust, Mary Baker Eddy added “the further trust that no new by-law shall be adopted, nor any by-law amended or annulled unless the written consent of said Mary Baker G. Eddy, the author of the textbook ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,’ be given therefore.”

(24) On September 21, 1892, Mrs. Eddy’s students formed an organization under her sole guidance and control as a “suffer it to be so now” association.

(25) Section 1 of Chapter 39 of the Public Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts permitted the four Director/Trustees to be “a perpetual body or corporation” for the purpose of holding association property and funds without organizing the association as a corporation licensed by the State.

(26) In 1895, Mary Baker Eddy published the “Church Manual of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts” to impersonally direct and govern her Church and its members before and after she passed on.

(27) In 1898, Mary Baker Eddy conveyed by legal Deed of Trust a second transfer of land on which to establish an independent Christian Science Publishing Society “for the purpose of more effectually promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science as taught my me.”

(28) On September 1, 1901, Mary Baker Eddy made her Last Will and Testament leaving her residual estate to the Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts.

(29) In February, 1903, Mary Baker Eddy added a fifth member to the four-member fiduciary Board of Directors/Trustees of The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts, to establish a temporary ecclesiastical Board of Directors for “The Mother Church” to prepare for its discontinuance at her demise, and leave The First Church of Christ, Scientists, to function in its wake.

(30) On March, 1903, Mary Baker Eddy conveyed by legal Deeds of Trust a transfer of land “for Church Purposes” to the four Director/Trustees of her Boston Church on which was to be built an Extension.

(31) In 1903, Mary Baker Eddy established a permanent system of Checks and Balances for the government of her Church by instituting additional by-laws to bring The Christian Science Publishing Society and its real estate Deed of Trust under her governing church Manual.

(32) Restrictive covenants in real estate Deeds of Trust are privately imposed limitations on the use of real property imposed and set forth in legal Deeds of Trust or in an separately recorded legal Declaration such as Mary Baker Eddy’s church Manual.

(33) Such covenants constitute an “appurtenance” to the real property and “run with the land”, i.e. transfer to the new owner with the transfer of the Deed of Trust.

(34) An appurtenance is a right, privilege, improvement, limitation, or obligation that passes with the land as an incident to its use such as a right of way or an obligation to do something or not do something or to specifically perform in some way — in this instance, the specific performance of the restrictive covenants in the Deeds of Trust and in the Manual.

(35) Restrictive covenants in real estate Deeds of Trust are enforceable by law.

(36) The restrictive covenants were cited in the by-laws of the Manual of the church to specify that the use of church property be “on the further trust that no new tenet or by-law shall be adopted not any tenet of by-law amended or annulled by the grantees unless the written consent of said Mary Baker Eddy, the author of the textbook Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by given therefore.”

(37) The last by-law in Mary Baker Eddy’s governing church Manual requires that the by-laws shall not be altered nor annulled without Mary Baker Eddy’s explicit consent.

(38) The foregoing covenant requires obedience to all of the covenants therein.

(39) Mary Baker Eddy insisted on leaving the estoppel covenants in her church Manual even though she was repeatedly asked by her five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors to modify or remove them and warned that if she did not the Church would be crippled at the time of her passing.

(40) The estoppel covenants in the Manual terminated the Mother Church and its ecclesiastical Board and Officials at Mary Baker Eddy’s passing leaving The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, to operate as a unique branch, since every activity of the Mother church required Mary Baker Eddy’s written approval or consent.

(41) Mary Baker Eddy discontinued the Mother Church and its “mothering” activities at her passing, leaving the Boston Church to operate as a unique Branch detached from the Vine and growing directly from the Root.

(42) Material organization and voluntary association are not the same for one destroys the other since one or the other becomes supreme.

(43) Within weeks of Mary Baker Eddy’s passing the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors put forth a church Manual of their own and announced themselves to be Mary Baker Eddy’s successor.

(44) Continuing the Mother Church after the Annual Meeting of June, 1911, could only be done by breaching the restrictive covenants in the Manual that required that the by-laws of the church Manual be neither amended, added to, or annulled.

(45) The Directors refusal to obey the restrictive covenants in the real estate Deeds of Trust and in the estoppel covenants in the Manual led to The Great Literature Litigation of 1919-1921.

(46) The Bill in Equity that the three Publishing Society Trustees filed with the court named the four-member fiduciary Board of Director/Trustees of the Boston Church, not the five-member fiduciary Board of The Mother Church because “that board” did not come under the jurisdiction of secular law, because of the first Amendment separation of church and state, therefore the distinction between the Boston Church and the Mother Church was at first hidden from the court.

(47) The church membership has been misled to believe that the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors are Mary Baker Eddy’s successor.

(48) The ecclesiastical Board forced the once independent Publishing Society into bankruptcy by creating a hostile financial embargo of its publications by influencing the membership to cancel their subscriptions to the periodicals.

(49) The Publishing Society trustees lacked the funds needed to carry an appeal to the Supreme Court.

(50) The Directors of the Mother Church were found guilty of contempt of court and fined for their contempt of court and the Publishing Society Trustees.

(51) When Mary Baker Eddy drew up her Will in 1910 only the four-member fiduciary Board/Trustees existed at that time, because the five-member ecclesiastical Board was not created until just before the 1903 conveyance of land for the Extension.

(52) The Second and last codicil to Mary Baker Eddy’s Will is conclusive leaving her residual estate to the four member fiduciary Board of Directors.

(53) A trust instrument is to be so constructed as to give the effect to the founder’s intent as manifested by the words she used.

(54) “At the time of the execution” of the first of the ten Deeds of Trust in 1903 Mary Baker Eddy had explicitly provided for two distinct Christian Science Boards of Directors; a fiduciary Board and an ecclesiastical Board.

(55) The restrictive covenants of the real estate Deeds of Trust and the covenants in the Manual of the Church show that Mary Baker Eddy intended the five-member ecclesiastical Board to be temporary until her passing in 1910.

(56) Mary Baker Eddy’s personal attorney, General Frank Streeter, acting in accord with the “law of agency,” opposed the five-member ecclesiastical Board’s waiver, abandonment, and avoidance of the estoppel by-laws Mary Baker Eddy imposed on all members including herself.

(57) The Eustace court ruled on only one point; that the four-member fiduciary Board — the board that was named in the suit — could discharge a Trustee of the self-perpetuating independent Christian Science Publishing Society.

(58) The Eustace court recognized an ecclesiastical board of five directors under the Manual and a fiduciary board of four directors under the 1892 et al real estate deed of trust.

(59) The Eustace court did not give the ecclesiastical directors the right to rule the Christian Science association as Mary Baker Eddy’s successor as they have been doing since 1910.

(60) The Eustace court declared that the estoppel covenants legally control the Manual.

(61) The 1903-1904 deeds of trust that control the Manual have never been adjudicated in a court of law.

(62) The directors appealed for the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to intervene on their behalf in violation of the establishment clause in the Constitution of the United States.

(63) Mary Baker Eddy’s directive to her Church is that the estoppel covenants in her association’s Manual be obeyed.

As the authorized representative of the falsely accused, I, David Everett Robinson, affirm under penalty of perjury on this the 8th day of August, that the information in this affidavit is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I, David Everett Robinson, as Secured Party Creditor, am authorized under the UCC to act as representative in and on DAVID E. ROBINSON’S behalf.