|
This investigative essay discusses in depth Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services’ legal and corporate
actions over the years involving copyrights of the
book Alcoholics Anonymous and other matters;
removal of AA literature items from eBay auctions;
lawsuits by A.A.W.S. to “protect” A.A.’s
identity and intellectual property and its copyrights
and trademarks; the German and Mexican Big Book® lawsuits
against A.A. members; the medallions lawsuit and subsequent
dropping of the circle and triangle symbol by A.A.;
the publications of the facsimile 1939 first edition
Big Book® and the first edition paperback by non-A.A.-Approved
sources; the history of AA incorporation(s);
the role of the A.A. General Service Conference,
A.A.W.S. and other AA corporate service
entities in all these matters; and, most importantly,
the spirituality of the 12 Steps, 12 Traditions and
12 Concepts (Warranties) in these controversies.
The reader is advised to have some research books
at hand: Advisory Actions of the General Service
Conference of Alcoholics Anonymous 1951-2004.
A.A.W.S., 1978-2004 151pp; and The A.A.
Service Manual - combined with – Twelve
Concepts for World Service by Bill W. A.A.W.S.,
1962-2002 Revised edition, pp S113 and 75pp.; and,
of course, the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book®,
The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, and
Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age.)
Access to a computer and the Internet is necessary
as much of this information is only available through
web sites.
The reader is further advised of the necessity of
open-mindedness, patience, and wisdom for the topics
here are tricky. Most importantly, spirituality
should rule in the Steps, Traditions and Concepts.
Put on your spiritual seatbelt, turn
page, and begin…
The history of corporate AA’s legal actions
is lengthy. One is amazed that the Fellowship-at-large
knows little or nothing about this. And
the General Service Conference of A.A. (GSC)
seems powerless to put these lawsuits and legal actions
on the its agenda for open discussion with the entire
Fellowship and corrective action.
Before discussing the legal mess currently at A.A.W.S.
and other A.A. corporations it is necessary
to review…
The Legal History of A.A.
Here is an edited General Service Office (GSO) summary
of “The Evolution of the AA Service Structure,”
a legal history if you will. I added the underlining.
1935 = Bill W. and Dr. Bob meet. AA begins.
1938 = The Alcoholic Foundation formed, an
unincorporated body of six to 8 individuals
whose assumed purpose is to help AA, principally its
finances, or more accurately, lack of finances.
1938 = Works Publishing Company, financed by Charles
Towns and John Rockefeller, is formed by Bill W. and
Hank P., an unincorporated body to own and
publish Alcoholics Anonymous, the book Bill
W. and others are writing. It sells shares to
various buyers. Later the shares were sold to
The Alcoholic Foundation, some for cash, others
for notes and Bill’s for future royalties and the
assumption of Bill’s debts. When the book was
complete, it was registered with the copyright office
as the personal property of William G. Wilson dba
Works Publishing.
1940 = Works Publishing, Inc. is incorporated as a
business corporation under the Stock Corporation Law
of the State of New York by The Alcoholic Foundation.
It purchases the assets and and liabilities of William
G. Wilson dba Works Publishing and Works Publishing
Company.
1943 = The Alcoholic Foundation, Inc., is incorporated
as a non-profit corporation under the Membership Corporation
Law of the State of New York. It replaces the
unincorporated body known as The Alcoholic
Foundation.
1944 = The Alcoholic Foundation makes the final
payments to Charles Towns and Rockefeller for their
interests in the book Alcoholics Anonymous.
1946 = The Alcoholics Anonymous Grapevine,
Inc., is incorporated as a business corporation under
the Stock Corporation Law of the State of New York.
Its primary purpose is to publish a monthly magazine
for distribution principally to AA members and is
wholly owned by The Alcoholic Foundation.
It is also permitted to pursue any other legal enterprises.
1950 = The A.A. General Service Conference
is formed on a trial basis by The Alcoholic
Foundation. It is an unincorporated body
composed of selected delegates, corporate trustees,
and directors and staff members. It started
meeting annually in 1951.
1953 = Works Publishing, Inc., is renamed A.A.W.S.
Incorporated.
1954 = The Alcoholic Foundation, Inc. is renamed
the General Service Board (GSB) of Alcoholics Anonymous,
Inc.
1955 = The General Service Conference of A.A.
and its Charter are adopted by acclamation at the
International Conference of A.A. in St. Louis.
The Conference is an unincorporated service
body, not a government of A.A. The Charter is
a voluntary compact. (note: not incorporated/organized.
It is not a grant from a state or other legal jurisdiction.
1962 = Alcoholics Anonymous World Services,
Inc. is incorporated as a non-profit corporation under
the Membership Corporation Law of the State of New
York. It takes over the assets and functions
of the stock corporation then known as A.A.W.S.
Incorporated, which is subsequently dissolved.
1969 = The World Service Meeting (WSM) is formed and
starts meeting every two years. It is an
unincorporated association of AAWS
franchised service structures of A.A. in
various countries. The service structure of
A.A. in the U.S. and Canada becomes a member
of the WSM as do service structures of A.A.
in other countries.
1971 = Alcoholics Anonymous Grapevine, Inc.
is incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation under
the Not-For-Profit Law of the State of New York.
It takes over the assets and functions of The Alcoholics
Anonymous Grapevine, Inc., the stock corporation then
known as A.A. Grapevine, Inc., which is subsequently
dissolved.
As far as it goes, the summary is true. Explanations
for all the corporate changes are lacking. And
as a legal history of A.A., it is lacking any
documentation or discussion of all the legal actions
AAWS and GSO, etc., have taken to sue AA members
in recent years. It also lacks the significant
change in the Charter’s Article two in 1987, which
states: “In countries where a General Service structure
exists, the U.S./Canada Conference will delegate sole
right to publish our Conference-approved literature
to the General Service Board of the structure (these
are FRANCHISE Agreements).” This change
effectively voided the previous Article wording: “But
no Conference Section shall ever be placed in authority
over another.” The reason given for the change
involved a problem with two different groups in Australia.
One AA member informed that the change was “ramroded”
through.(4) It was reaffirmed with minor language
clarifications by the 1988 GSC. None of the
AAWS lawsuits against AA members in Germany
or Mexico have ever been approved by GSConferences.
AAWS, GSO General Managers, Trustees, etc initiated
the lawsuits.
Before discussing those lawsuits, let us look farther
inside A.A. history for some non-legal, spiritual
precedents. A.A.
shares its experience (history), strength
and hope and the Fellowship has a rich history of
“mistakes corrected,” as Bill W. said.
The 2nd GSConference tackled the problem
again and decided to incorporate through an Act of
Congress until Bill W. and others expressed doubts
as to whether A.A. “as a faith and way of life” really
belonged in the field of incorporation. After
that, the original motion for incorporation was tabled
unanimously.
At the 3rd GSConference a special committee
report recommended that A.A. not incorporate.
That resolution was passed unanimously.
“The collective conscience of A.A.” acted before the
12 Concepts existed!
Reading the following report one is impressed with
the wording of the nine points:
(CONFERENCE ADVISORY ACTIONS 1953 pg 32)
REPORT of the COMMITTEE on
CONGRESSIONAL INCORPORATION of AA
We have reviewed all of the arguments pro and con
on this subject, have discussed it with many members
of AA within the Conference and outside of it and
have come to these conclusions:
1. The evils which caused the question to arise have
largely abated.
2. It would create by law a power to govern which
would be contrary to, and violative of, our Traditions.
3. It would implement the spiritual force of AA with
a legal power, which we believe would tend to weaken
its spiritual strength.
4. When we ask for legal rights, enforceable in Courts
of Law, we by
the same act subject ourselves to possible legal regulation.
5. We might well become endlessly entangled in litigation
which, together with the incident expense and publicity,
could seriously threaten our very existence.
6. Incorporation could conceivably become the opening
wedge that might
engender politics and a struggle for power within
our own ranks.
7. Continuously since its beginning and today, AA
has been a fellowship and not an organization. Incorporation
necessarily makes it an organization.
8. We believe that "spiritual faith" and
a "way of life" cannot be incorporated.
9. AA can and will survive so long as it remains a
spiritual faith and
a way of life to all men and women who suffer from
alcoholism.
Therefore, keeping in mind, the high purpose of the
General Service Conference as expressed by the Chairman
last year when he said, "We seek not compromise
but certainty", your Committee unanimously
recommends that Alcoholics Anonymous does not incorporate.
Those 9 points above are a wonderful spiritual precedent.
They stand in stark contrast to the current New York
office service corporations and their legal actions.
Spirituality can not be incorporated in A.A.
The principle was established. In 1953, the
GSConference recommended “Alcoholics Anonymous not
incorporate.” (ADGSC, p. 145) From 1938
to 1986, various legal changes involving The Alcoholic
Foundation, Works Publishing, Inc., The Alcoholics
Anonymous Grapevine, the General Service Conference,
A.A.W.S., the General Service Board, and the
World Service Meeting have been approved.
It is important to remember the General Service Conference
of A.A. is unincorporated, a service
body and not a government for A.A. The Charter
is a voluntary compact and also unincorporated.
It is not a grant from a state or other jurisdiction.
Nor is it a legal contract document. The World
Service Meeting also is unincorporated.
The following are all CORPORATIONS: Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services, Inc.; the General Service
Board of Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc.; and the
Alcoholics Anonymous Grapevine, Inc.
They are NOT Alcoholics Anonymous. They are
service organizations and corporations whose purpose
and existence is to serve the Fellowship. In
effect, they are temporary, albeit long-lived, committees
that could all be thrown away and Alcoholics Anonymous
would still exist.
A.A. groups are independent from the NY AA
Corporations as it states in their by-laws for incorporation:
they were ostensibly organized to serve the autonomous
groups that make up the Alcoholics Anonymous movement.
Autonomous means 'self-governing' and 'independent
from the whole.' The lawsuits (discussed
below) clearly demonstrate that the Corporations using
the AA name are rejecting the autonomy of the groups
and in violation of their own by-laws. It is as impossible
to have group autonomy with a central authority that
has the power of punishment, as it is to have a government
of totalitarian anarchy. These are two dialectically
opposed systems in which one cancels out the other
and cannot coexist simultaneously under the same roof.
What then
is A.A.? It is one alcoholic talking
to another alcoholic. That is its essence.
“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women
who share their experience, strength and hope with
each other that they may solve their common problem
and help others to recover from alcoholism.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to
stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for
A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our
own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any
sect, denomination, politics, organization, or institution;
does not wish to engage in any controversy;
A.A. is not legally organized. It is not a batch
of corporations. It is two alcoholics talking
to each other.
This essay will focus on spiritual principles rather
than legal principles. While legal questions
abound on the copyright of the first 1939 edition
Alcoholics Anonymous and royalties from it,
on who really owns the Big Book®, on whether or not
the Big Book and other A.A. literature are
property (which A.A. is prohibited from owning!),
on a legal definition of what is A.A. literature…indeed,
a host of questions involving A.A.’s early
history and current policy of extreme legalism …these
questions will be approached spiritually rather than
legally.
Another author, an excellent researcher and A.A. historian,
has been working on a book on all these matters that
will expose many of the early A.A. “fairy
tales” involving our history. It undoubtedly
will address many of these legal issues. We
look forward to that volume. Here we shall depend
on A.A.’s Twelve Steps, Traditions, Concepts
and the Fellowship itself.
Since many of these lawsuits and other legal actions
depend on an assumption that A.A. “owns” intellectual
property (literature) from which it receives many
millions of dollars, the question lingers: If
A.A. is prohibited from owning property, how
can A.A.W.S. claim ownership and trusteeship
of this intellectual property with its multi-million
dollar income annually in violation of A.A.’s
Traditions?
What is A.A. Literature?
All of the corporate lawsuits and other harassing
legal actions by A.A. trusted servants in New
York have focused on protecting and defending the
A.A. name and its A.A.-approved literature
against perceived threats. Those lawsuits and
other legal actions on the internet, eBay auctions,
in Mexico and Germany and reactions to the publication
of the first edition 1939 facsimile of the Big Book
and the first paperback reprint of the original Big
Book all involved A.A. literature and the Alcoholics
Anonymous name itself. The legalists in
New York have a very narrow definition of A.A.
literature. If it isn’t “A.A. Conference
Approved Literature” then it isn’t A.A. literature.
If A.A.W.S. or the A.A. Grapevine doesn’t
publish it, then it isn’t legally A.A. literature.
By that legal measure, many thousands of books, articles,
pamphlets, tapes, videos, early original letters,
etc. are not A.A. literature! Twenty-Four
Hours a Day was the second largest best seller
(behind the Big Book) to A.A. members from
many years. Biographies of Sr. Ignatia, Ebby
T., Clarence S., Sen. Hughes, Bill W., Dr. Silkworth,
and others were never A.A. General Service
Conference Approved and therefore, the legalists would
say, are not A.A. literature. Many histories,
from Ernest Kurtz’s NOT-GOD: A History of Alcoholics
Anonymous onward, are not legally A.A.
literature. We could fill the next fifty pages
with hundreds of examples. We note that
the A.A. Archives in New York City are bulging
with these “illegal” works of A.A. literature.
Many think the Legalism Movement in A.A. began
in 1985 when Jon S. of Akron published a facsimile
copy of the first 1939 edition of the book Alcoholics
Anonymous. He had discovered the copyright
to the first edition Big Book had expired and was
now in the public domain (The original text
of the First Edition lapsed into public domain in
1967 and the Second Edition in 1983. A.A.W.S.
failed to renew the 1939 copyright.) Like
Shakespeare’s plays and the Bible, anyone could reprint
the 1939 A.A. Big Book and not pay royalties.
The reaction from A.A. members was mixed: some
approved and thought it a worthwhile project; others
thought the man was guilty of genocide or the worst
serial killer in history. Jon was called a communist;
he received many phone death threats! His reputation
was slandered. He was harassed. He was
a good man. He did nothing illegal under criminal
or civil law. He did nothing that violated any
of A.A. Steps or Traditions.
I bought ten or twenty copies from him. It was
a great idea, especially celebrating the 50th
anniversary of Alcoholics Anonymous’ founding in 1935.
Caused quite a stir at GSO in New York though.
In 1977, years earlier, the General Service Conference
recommended that “publication of a facsimile of the
first edition of the Big Book should NOT be undertaken
as it would destroy the sentimental value of the actual
first edition (Floor Action)(1).” I don’t know
anyone who’s complaining about the destruction of
the sentimental value of actual BB first editions.
I know thousands of A.A.s who are very grateful
he published the facsimile. Many thousands of
copies were bought and continue to sell briskly in
further reprints.
Was the loss of the copyright for the first edition
1939 Big Book a spiritual coincidence? A.A.
had lost its first intellectual property, its basic
text, its Bible if you will. What horrible catastrophe
has been visited on the Fellowship because of that?
None. Of course, the field here is open to lots
of interpretation. Maybe someone at GSO called
in sick with the “flu” the day the copyright renewal
papers were to be processed. A sense of humor,
please! Nothing bad happened. It’s part
of A.A.’s legal history that’s not written
up in any “official A.A. history.”
The 1939 facsimile BB published by Carry The Message
sold thousands of copies. Anonymous Press in
recent years acquired it and continues to sell thousands
of copies. In 1985 this must certainly have
shaken up A.A.W.S. After all, they were
selling many thousands of copies of the Big Book and
here was the first real threat to their chief literature
moneymaker. They certainly reviewed their copyrights
program and soon employed a law firm specializing
in that area.
The Paperback AA Big Book
In 1992, Intergroup World Service (IWS) (not affiliated
with AAWS or any other A.A. corporation)
reprinted the first 1939 edition first printing of
the AA Big Book in paperback. They sold it for
peanuts… $2.50. In quantities of 100 copies
it could be bought for 85 cents. For 500 or
more copies: 55 cents each. The book included
the forwards, Dr.’s Opinion, the first 164 pages and
Dr. Bob’s story. They sold thousands.
I remember A.A. groups buying 25, 50, 100
copies and giving them away. Obviously, it was
needed. In the first year IWS gave away about
2,000 free and sold the remainder of the initial printing
of 4,500. IWS cost per book including printing,
paper, cover material and shipping was 45 cents.
The legalists in A.A. reacted very quickly
to this real threat to A.A.’s big moneymaker,
the Big Book®. In 1993, the Literature
Committee of the General Service Conference recommended,
“A.A.W.S. produce a pocket-sized (read: paperback)
version of the Big Book with all front matter (preface
and various forewords, Doctor’s Opinion), basic text,
Dr. Bob’s Story and Appendixes.” In 1958, in
a Floor Action, the GSC recommended, “a paperback
edition of the ‘Big Book’ not be published.”
In 1987, that G.S.C. committee advised “Although there
is some desire to publish the first 181 pages of the
Big Book, Alcoholics Anonymous, in soft-cover
(read paperback), there is not sufficient need at
this time.” In 1976, the Literature Committee
and the G.S.C. in Floor Action recommended “We keep
the Big Book, Alcoholics Anonymous, as it
is at this time and not publish a paperback edition.”
The above recommendations are quoted from Advisory
Actions of the General Service Conference of Alcoholics
Anonymous 1951-2004. So for about 35
years, AAWS and the GSC ignored or defeated
any request to reprint the Big Book in paperback.
One major reason often quoted was that it would “cheapen”
the Big Book. It certainly did “cheapen” the
Big Book when thousands of A.A. members could buy
it for $2.50 or much less in quantities (55cents including
shipping) from IWS.
Less than a year after the IWS paperback reprint,
AAWS rushed into print with its own “cheap”
Big Book paperback. Why? Money.
AAWS’s first printing run of the now A.A.-Approved
Big Book paperback was 100,000 copies. They
used the same printing company as IWS: Rose Printing
of Tallahassee, Florida. AAWS provided the
paper and cover material and the completed AAWS
book had 16 fewer pages than the IWS paperback.
Cost to AAWS was .67 cents per book.
The AAWS paperback was printed at the identical
plant, on the identical presses, bound in the same
bindery, by the same workers. Two months after
the IWS paperback reprint, IWS met with concerned
AAWS officials and began receiving harassing
legal letters from AAWS. AAWS
accused IWS of “unfair competition” (the low price
of the book?) AAWS continues to print
the BB paperback for $5.60 each. Finally, in
1995, IWS and AAWS met and worked out a settlement.
In a telephone interview with John G. of IWS, he detailed
the main points of the settlement:
1) AAWS would
apologize to every A.A. group in the world
for its legal harassment of IWS, Inc. That AAWS
apology was published in Box 4-5-9 and in the 1995
Final Report of the General Service Conference.
2) IWS would stop printing
in Spanish.
3) IWS would stop selling
its paperback in Canada.
4) IWS
would submit all future reprints before printing to
AAWS for review. Shortly thereafter,
IWS dissolved. A new group, Anonymous Press,
has taken over printing and sales of the former IWS
paperback BB, as well as the facsimile of the original
1939 BB in hardback and soft back. (see
http://anonpress.org/).
In the late 1980s, another thorny legal problem emerged
concerning the circle and triangle symbol used
at that time to identify A.A.-Approved Literature.
“AAWS decided to withdraw all permission to
use the AA logo that had been freely granted up to
that time. Its use had been mainly by jewelry
and trinket manufacturers for making and marketing
their products to A.A. members (2).” About 170
permits were granted by that time. “AAWS
notified them all about the withdrawal of permission
and asked them to discontinue any current or future
use of that symbol. All but two agreed:
After further negotiations with the two who refused
failed, it was decided by AAWS to bring suit
against the offenders. The General Service Conference
was never consulted, although there was no emergency
of any kind existing that made immediate action necessary.
It was after some $180,000 spent on legal fees, and
it became apparent that AAWS was going to lose
the lawsuit, AAWS agreed with the defendants
in this case to allow the circle and triangle to enter
the public domain.
After this fiasco, AAWS decided to no longer
use the circle and triangle as an official logo on
any AA literature. However, they did
state that A.A. members could continue to use
this logo if they so desired. This action was
(also) taken without consulting the (GS) Conference.
This is what I know about this matter. The rest
is all history, except the Trustees have repeatedly
thwarted any attempts to put this issue on the Conference
agenda to be discussed by the entire Fellowship.
Such discussions that have taken place, have been
in a time and place that the Trustees could control
the outcome.(2)
One source pointed out that the lawsuit was dropped
when the defendants sought “the right of disclosure”
which could have led to A.A. members and A.A.
trusted servants having to break their own anonymity
and that of others in a public court of law.
Having lost the lawsuit, what “amends” were made to
the defendants?
In 1994, the General Service Board of A.A.
formed an ad hoc committee to discuss the policy on
protection of trademarks and copyrights. “The
committee was unable to achieve agreement on the
issue of litigation, but recognizes that we are
a spiritual Fellowship with some business and as a
matter of policy our Steps, Traditions and Concepts
should direct the nature of that business.”
The committee recommended:
1)
That A.A.W.S. follow the policy of identifying
trademarks and copyrights as guidelines until the
1996 Conference allowing time for the Fellowship to
consider the concerns surrounding this issue.
And, this policy be reviewed by the 1996 Conference.
2)
That information and questions about these issues
be furnished to the Fellowship at large and input
be sought from the group level. Regional Forum
workshops and Delegate presentations within their
area could be possible avenues for dissemination of
this information. Specific questions should
include our society’s responsibility to A.A.’s
intellectual properties, basic message and the A.A.
name itself.
3)
That litigation is a matter for thorough and cautious
consideration and should not be undertaken without
consultation with the General Service Board.”(3)
(No consultation with the General Service Conference?).
Please note that AAWS was not required to submit
matters of possible litigation for review or approval
or disapproval to the General Service Conference.
Consultation with the General Service Board is consultation
with the Trustees who, apparently, are in agreement
with AAWS about lawsuits.
In 1994, the GSC of A.A. recommended “The circle
and triangle logo be discontinued on all Conference-approved
literature” and “The words ‘This is A.A. General
Service Conference-approved Literature’ be displayed
on the front cover of all A.A. Conference-approved
literature wherever possible.” (5)
Remember that AAWS did not ask permission from
the GSC (the Delegates) to file a lawsuit on the circle
and triangle symbol. The GSC has become over
the years a mute rubber stamp approval by inaction
for AAWS legal actions … after the fact.
The GSC has never put the whole issue of lawsuits
and other legal actions on its agenda for discussion
and policy action.
The following two major lawsuits are a direct result
of a change in the A.A.
Charter that gave A.A.W.S. the right to delegate
to only one General Service Conference in a foreign
country permission to print A.A. literature.
A.A.W.S.’s legal actions over recent years in
initiating lawsuits and other harassments resulted
in a breach of trust and ten delegates signed a motion
to censure the GSBoard. This was the only
major censure motion in A.A. history!
In ACGSCAA, p. 147, in 1995, a recommendation
that “the proposal to censure the General Service
Board (the Trustees)” was “dismissed (by the Trustees).”
For a full discussion of this censure go to:
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ce/cens94.htm.
Here is the essence of what the ten delegates said:
“Alcoholics Anonymous, either directly or indirectly,
has found itself engaged in activities formerly considered
well outside the realm of our spiritual path. Our
service boards have begun to engage in struggles over
power and property and have provided the opportunity
for a small minority to seek prestige.”
The
German Big Book Lawsuit
(An A.A. Trusted Servant wrote the following summary.
For more information go to: www.heise.nu/AALawsuit.)
In the 1970s, the official German edition of the Big
Book of Alcoholics Anonymous had a number of
translation flaws. The most serious problem
was that nearly all appearances of the word “spiritual”
had been translated as “mental” or “psychological.”
(the word “spiritual” occurs in the Multilith manuscript
of the Big Book 108 times and 106 times in the third
edition. The German GSO translation of 1983
contains the word “spiritual” only 8 times.) (Later
research has showed that this translation issue was
misunderstood, secondary and resolved. The translation
issue was not the real problem.) See also postings
at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/).
The official German translation was priced nearly
five times higher than the cost to produce it, compromising
its ability to carry the A.A. spiritual message.
Hundreds of A.A. members in Germany felt these
wrongs with the official German translation should
be corrected and began working with the German General
Service Conference (GGSC) in the 1980s to effect change.
The GGSC was unwilling to correct the text or lower
the price. In 1995, concerned AA members formed
an AA Big Book Study Group (AABBSG) and offered three
translations of the first chapter of the basic text
to the GermanGSC and GermanGSO at no cost. The
GGSO refused and returned them to the AABBSG.
At this point the AABBSG printed and mailed about
10,000 copies to the groups and called for a group
conscience. In early 1996 the AABBSG registered
with the European GSO. During a visit with the
Gen. Mgr. of the GGSO in Feb. 1996, the AABBSG learned
the GGSO had no objection to distribution of the free
corrected Big Books. By this time the AABBSG
had prepared their own translation of the basic text
from the original Multilith text (which had no copyright)
and had paid a professional book manufacturer to print
10,000 copies. They gave them away free during
the German convention and mailed them free.
A second printing was soon needed and big book studies
sprang up all over the country.
In summer 1996, AABBSG began translating and giving
away two pamphlets because they were badly needed
for 12th Step work. In August 1996
Gen. Mgr. George D. of AAWS, Inc., went to
Munich and arranged a license agreement for the Big
Book and these two pamphlets. These agreements
were kept secret and unknown to the Fellowship until
Dec. 10, 1997. Under the agreement, the German
GSO was authorized (and required) to take legal action
against AABBSG. Gen. Mgr. George D. of AAWS
urged GGSO Gen. Mgr. Hans P. to sue, or else risk
being sued himself (by the executors of the Wilson
estate, Michael Alexander and Owen Flanagan?) (or
by AAWS?).
In 1997, a criminal investigation of the AABBSG was
conducted by local police. Although it was unsuccessful,
some members of the AABBSG (afraid of further consequences)
signed agreements with AAeV (the German GSO)
to
never again give away a Big Book, or else pay $6,000.
fine for each one to the German GSO. A few AABBSG
members refused to sign and continued to give away
copies of the original Multilith text.
At this point, the German GSO singled out one individual
(Matthew, the book manufacturer) and added civil lawsuits
to the ongoing criminal prosecution. The AABBSG
responded by printing copies of the first edition
of the Big Book, for which the U.S. copyright had
lapsed and was thought to have been forfeited by unrestricted
publication of the Multilith draft without copyright
notice. These were printed in languages other
than German.
At AAWS, Inc.’s request, the German GSO sued
Matthew and another individual for the foreign language
editions, requesting up to $250,000. in fines for
each language. When the German GSO lost this
lawsuit, AAWS, Inc. itself brought suit for
about $200,000. directly against Matthew for the free
distribution of the foreign language editions of the
first edition Big Book by AABBSG, as well as purchasing
a few Big Books in the U.S. and reselling them in
Germany.
Although many A.A. members in more than one location
carried out the printing, AAWS, Inc. brought
suit against one A.A. individual. More ominously,
the actions of AAWS, Inc. have been diametrically
opposed to A.A.’s principles --- most notably Step
12, Tradition 5, and Concept XII, Warranty Five.
In their zeal to win the lawsuit, AAWS, Inc.
testified to the German court that they were in no
way bound by A.A. Traditions, and indicated
that the corporation bylaws of both AAWS, Inc.
and the German GSO do not prohibit bringing lawsuits,
in the expectation that the corporations sometimes
must bring lawsuits in order to protect their assets.
AAWS Inc. has also stated that they will continue
to sue Matthew (and others) by all means possible.
Although the German Delegates and Committees were
asked to consider the topic and voted UNANIMOUSLY
in 2002 that the AAeV/German GSO is bound to
adhere to the AA Steps, Traditions and Concepts,
their President wrote a letter to the court that the
German GSC had approved the lawsuits (did they?) and
he had no choice but to continue with litigation.
By October 2003 Matthew had exhausted all his funds
and became unable to pay for any further legal defense.
The legal costs and probable punitive damages resulting
from the AAWS, Inc. lawsuits will probably
send him into bankruptcy, and possibly jail.
Since April 2003 Matthew has been making regular payments
on the judgment to AAWS and AAeV.
Apparently, this payment plan has become unacceptable,
most likely because Matthew has not been willing to
agree to other conditions requested by AA Inc….
specifically to: 1) reveal full names (break the anonymity)
of others involved in these 12th Step efforts;
and 2) agree to never hand out another piece of A.A.
literature---regardless of who published it.
Without Matthew’s acceptance of these conditions,
AAWS and AAeV have been unwilling to
agree to any payment schedule, and have insisted he
must pay all fines, penalties, interest and principal
of the judgment by July 20 or he will experience “Zwangsvollstreckung”
(“further law enforcement punishment).
Almost no financial support has come from fellow AA
members. Matthew has personally borrowed funds
equivalent to $50,000. (US Dollars) in order to fully
meet AA Inc. attorney’s demands – that they
will receive the money on
July 20. This is the remainder (unpaid portion)
of the initially demanded payments that are now required
to be paid in full. Although AAWS financial
demands will be met as required, the AAWS attorney
Roth has informed Matthew in a recent letter that
AAWS will now proceed with litigation and prosecution
for “Schadensersatz” (punitive damages) which will
likely result in considerably greater financial debts
for Matthew.
As of December, 2004, Matthew has paid AA Inc.
about 40,000 Euro (about $53,208. US Dollars) out
of his own pocket. One unseen document, a 2004
financial report from the German GSO lists a gain
of about 20,000 Euro from “other sources.”
Looking over this mess in Germany, one A.A. member
said that March 26, 1998, when the trial began against
Matthew, was “the saddest day in A.A. history.”
“The German AAeV (GSO) wants to take all of
the (A.A.) literature owned by this individual
A.A. member and the Group he belongs to and destroy
it. This writer wonders if the German General
Service Office remembers in the world’s not too distant
past, the practice of book burning once so prevalent
in Germany?” he said.
What did it cost A.A.W.S. to do all this?
Legal fees and related expenses over the seven year
period, 1998-2004, totaled $227,707., according to
the April, 2004, report of Elaine McDowell, Ph.D.,
Chair of the A.A. General Service Board.
(That report is available from GSO). And it
cost Matthew many thousands of dollars.
Was the message of the Big Book in any way “diluted,”
or changed, or harmed by Matthew’s efforts?
NO. Did Matthew and his friends try to “carry
the message”? YES. Did A.A.W.S.
start this whole batch of lawsuits? YES.
The
Mexican Big Book Lawsuit
I have listed several links to web sites that provide
extensive information on the history of the Mexican
lawsuit involving AAWS, Inc.:
First
go to: http://www.aagso.org/
Then
scroll down to:
AAWS License Agreement
with Central Mexicana
Then at the top of that page, click here.
Then at the top of that page click,
background information
There are 62 different listings here, a wealth of
information.
Please note listings # 60 and 61 among many important
ones.
In 1986, a section of AA groups broke off from the
Central Mexico Service Structure to form their own
group, called Section Mexicana composed of over 2,000
groups with some 20,000 to 28,000 members in 19 areas.
In 1987, the General Service Conference (USA/Canada)
modified Article II of our Conference Charter to authorize
the USA/Canada Conference to DELEGATE the sole right
of literature publishing to the General Service Board
of each country. This change replaced the former
autonomy of foreign structures with a form of government
where one conference
has
authority over another conference. (Compare the Original
Charter, Article II with the Current Conference Charter,
Article II of The AA Service Manual)
In October 1990, in a signed AAWS License Agreement
(read: franchise agreement), AAWS Inc. authorized
the Central Mexico group to be the sole publisher
of A.A. literature in Mexico. Sect. 2
showed that AAWS “may use the licensed trademarks
for itself or through written sub-licenses granted
to the service centers and traditional AA groups.”
So it was and is possible and legal for AAWS
to grant permission to publish A.A.-Approved
Literature to more than one AA group in a country.
In July 1994, Central Mexico sued the Section Mexicana
for publishing A.A. literature. AAWS
has claimed it was not a party to the Central Mexicana
lawsuit but this is not true: Consider the following
quote from AAWS General Manager George D. concerning
the foreign licensing/franchise agreements: "Our
licensing agreements have also included a REQUIREMENT
that the necessary actions to protect the copyrights
which were licensed." Central
Mexico had to sue, according to AAWS's licensing/franchise
agreement, or else risk a lawsuit against itself by
AAWS.
In July 1994, Mexican law officials entered the offices
of Section Mexicana and impounded two truckloads of
AA Big Books, pamphlets and other AA literature.
Section Mexicana spent some $300,000. (US Dollars)
defending itself. One Section Mexicana trusted
servant, Javier G., was convicted in criminal court
of violating copyright laws and sentenced to one year
in prison. AAWS was a legal party to
that criminal proceeding. There were public
news reports of the raid on
Section
Mexicana’s offices.
At their national convention at Nezahualcoyotl City,
June 7, 1997, after many failed attempts to communicate
with AAWS and Central Mexico GSC to resolve
the dispute, Section Mexicana adopted the following
“Declaration of Mexico” (I have condensed and
underlined certain sections):
Section Mexico adopts the original conference charter
offered by Bill W. and unanimously acclaimed in 1955
by the A.A. collective conscience. The General
Service Conference shall be a service body only; never
a government for Alcoholics Anonymous.
Our World Services should always conform to the Composition
Concept outlined in Article Two of the original
Conference Charter.
We suggest that the collective world conscience speak
out their disapproval of the updating made in 1987
to Article Two of the Conference Charter, for this
action has whereupon nullified the group-autonomy
concept among the different sections of the conference,
and has, consequently, placed one conference in a
position of unqualified authority over any of the
others.
In all its proceedings, the World Service Conference
shall observe the Spirit of A.A. Traditions,
taking great care that the conference never becomes
the seat of perilous wealth and power…
None of the World Service Conference members shall
ever be placed in a position of unqualified authority
over any of the others; that all important decisions
be reached by discussion, vote, and whenever possible,
by substantial unanimity.
No World Service Conference action shall ever be personally
punitive or an incitement to public controversy.
The World Service Conference…shall never perform any
acts of government; and that, like the Society of
A.A. which it serves, the Conference itself will always
remain democratic in thought and action.
The spiritual force of A.A. has proved, as our own
painful experience has taught the A.A. World Fellowship,
to be stronger than any legal power. Accordingly,
this First A.A. World Service Meeting solemnly declares
that in A.A. there should not be any litigation,
ever.
…that the A.A. Literature shall not be considered
a source of income.
…and that A.A. should remain being its own publisher
| 
GO
BACK