|
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
and editor so that A.A. literature keeps its spiritual
message.
Section Mexico’s General Service Conference after
eleven years of serving its Fellowship, has the deepest
conviction that the Conference Plan is a Warrantee
that our movement-wide service would continue to function
under all conditions, God willing…
This first A.A. World Service Meeting calls the world
group conscience to (return) to the A.A. principles,
the only way to keep our blessed fellowship united
for ourselves and future generations…
Our long journey from the devasting prosecution
we were subjected to, to today’s blessings, and a
promising future, are rich experiences that we would
like to share with our A.A. Fellows from abroad.
We also propose you to make all necessary arrangements
so as to celebrate our next A.A. International Meeting
in the year 2001.”
The A.A.W.S. = eBay
controversy
Alcoholics
Anonymous
World Services, over the past two years, has removed
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of books and other items
for sale on eBay auctions because A.A.W.S.
says the listings offer “counterfeit or unauthorized
items that violate a trademark,” namely the name “Alcoholics
Anonymous.”
And many Fellowship members, AA archivists, collectors,
buyers and sellers, and booksellers of Alcoholics
Anonymous historical literature are upset and describe
A.A.W.S.’s actions as “punitive.” They
further say A.A.W.S. is violating several of
A.A.’s Twelve Traditions and Concepts.
And…that A.A.W.S.’s actions, while legal, have
taken the Fellowship into the public arena where lawsuits,
punitive actions and public controversy may occur.
What A.A.W.S. has done with these legal actions
is attack the very heart of A.A., its history.
Many hundreds, probably thousands, of A.A. members,
archivists and collectors as well as scholars searched
and found and bought thousands of books, articles,
and other material by and about A.A. They all
love A.A. history and these eBay auctions were
one of their primary sources for finding it.
Yes, trinkets were sold on the site. Everyone
knows a lighter or a candle with a picture of Dr.
Bob is not A.A.-Approved. If someone
advertised a Sr. Ignatia Sacred Heart medal from St.
Thomas Hospital, what great harm is done? Everyone
knows it’s not A.A.-Approved Literature.
As an Antiquarian Bookseller-Appraiser specializing
in the literature of Alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous
for the past 30 years full time, I recently had several
“Alcoholics Anonymous” literature items removed
from my eBay auctions for the first time in my career.
Over the past two years, I have received emails from
others complaining about their advertised “AA” items
for sale on eBay auctions also being removed.
One gentleman had 50 items removed.
A current GSO research report I requested revealed
that from December, 2002, to September, 2005, a total
of 735 items advertised as “Alcoholics Anonymous”
auctions have been removed by AAWS under the
eBay VeRO program. There were many hundreds,
probably thousands that could have been removed but
were not…which amounts to selective punishment.
Here is the eBay email others and I have received:
Dear Charles Bishop,
**PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL REGARDING YOUR
LISTING (S)**
We would like to let you know that we removed your
listings:
4573581620 Alcoholics Anonymous: Washingtonians!
4573583256 Alcoholics Anonymous: Road Back
history
because an intellectual property rights owner notified
us, under penalty of perjury, that your listing offers
a counterfeit or unauthorized item that violates a
trademark.
We have credited any associated fees to your account.
We have also notified the bidders that the listing
was removed, and that they are not obligated to complete
the transaction.
If you relist this or any other similar items on eBay,
your account likely will be suspended.
If you believe your listing was ended in error, or
have questions regarding the removal of this listing,
please contact the intellectual property rights owner
directly at: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services,
Inc. (AAWS)
ebayqueries@aa.org. (is
that email address affiliation with eBay?)
eBay
is available to answer questions, but since it is
the intellectual property rights owner that requested
the removal of your listings, we encourage you to
contact them first.
For more information on the VeRO Program, and a list
of rights owner About Me pages, please visit:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/vero-removed-listing.html
and http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/vero-aboutme.html
Thank you for your cooperation. Regards,
Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department), eBay
Inc.” (END eBay email)
The VeRO program is explained in the two websites
above. Just click either and the two eBay links
will provided you with complete information.
Basically, since “eBay is generally unable to determine
whether a particular item on eBay is authorized or
not, eBay has reached out to intellectual property
rights owners for their help. eBay established
the VeRO Program in 1997 to enable intellectual property
rights owners to easily report and request removal
of listings offering items or containing materials
that infringe their rights.”
The words “Alcoholics Anonymous, A.A.,” are
federally registered trademarks owned by A.A.W.S.
They are intellectual property of Alcoholics Anonymous.
In a letter from the law firm representing AAWS to
a person who objected to having her eBay auction listing
removed, it stated “We represent A.A.W.S. with
respect to trademark and copyright matters.
We requested that your particular listing be removed
because of the use of either, or both, ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS or AA in the title of the item.
We requested removal because the use of those marks
in the title suggests that AAWS sponsors, approves,
etc., the item you listed. The item listed is
not approved AAWS material.” Clearly,
AAWS removes the items; not eBay.
My first item removed was: “The Road Back: A Report
on Alcoholics Anonymous by Joseph Kessel.
First American Edition. 1962.
244pp. French journalist explores AA.”
It is not A.A.-Approved literature but the
entire book is about AA and the title includes “Alcoholics
Anonymous.” For many years the easiest search
category for literature by or about AA on eBay
auctions was “Alcoholics Anonymous.” Now the
only items legally permitted in that category by
AAWS are “A.A.-Approved publications.”
If I relist that item under the eBay category “Alcoholics
Anonymous,” I risk having my eBay account suspended.
That’s certainly a punitive action. When AAWS
removed it and 3 other items, I found my description
of the items disappeared entirely from eBay.
So my work was gone. That’s punitive.
I reprinted the The Washingtonian book of 1842
in 1992 and reprinted that
twice more and have sold several hundred copies over
the years to AA archivists and others. Milton
Maxwell, a non-alcoholic A.A. Trustee, who wrote about
the Washingtonians, read the book. Bill W.,
AA Co-founder, obviously talked with Maxwell about
it and Bill took to heart the mistakes of the Washingtonians
when he was writing the 12 Traditions. The Washingtonians
were the subject of several AA Grapevine articles.
Legally the book is not A.A.-Approved literature
but it certainly is A.A. literature in the spiritual
and practical realm. Bibliographies of AA include
it and the book by Kessel mentioned above.
The very first Advisory Action from the General Service
Conference (GSC) Literature Committee in 1951 reads,
“In future years, A.A. textbook literature
should have Conference approval (Agenda Committee).
Prior to the vote on this subject, it was pointed
out that the adoption of the suggestion should not
preclude the continued issuance of various printed
documents by non-Foundation sources.
No desire to review, edit or censor non-Foundation
material is implied. The objective is to
provide, in the future, a means of distinguishing
Foundation literature from that issued locally or
by non-A.A. interests.” Of course, the
question remains of how binding are “Advisory Actions
of the GSC” on AAWS or GSO or GSBoard?
Apparently not very binding at all.
A.A.W.S.’s action kicking people off eBay “Alcoholics
Anonymous” auctions certainly seems to be “censor
of non-Foundation material.” And GSO servants
certainly “review” non-Foundation material on that
website.
AAWS is using a very narrow, legal definition
of what constitutes A.A. literature that excludes
literally hundreds, indeed many thousands, of books
and other works from being advertised in eBay auctions
under the category “Alcoholics Anonymous.” Consider:
the number two best-selling book for AA members for
many, many years was Twenty-Four Hours a Day,
outsold only by the Big Book.
AAWS could remove it from eBay auctions since
it is not A.A.-Approved Literature.
A signed 1941 letter about anonymity from Bill W.
on his AA letterhead would not qualify for
sale on eBay under “Alcoholics Anonymous.” Nor
would Ernest Kurtz’s
Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Nor would the 1941 Saturday Evening Post magazine
article on A.A. that resulted in our membership
jumping from 2,000 to 8,000 in a year or so.
Nor would thousands of other items. In the extreme,
AAWS could remove Alcoholics Anonymous,
the facsimile 1985 reprint of the first edition of
the Big Book, since it is not A.A.-Approved
Literature (and would certainly risk a lawsuit!).
If AAWS-GSO applied that narrow, legal definition
of A.A.-Approved Literature to itself, maybe
the A.A. Archives in New York might have to
be “reviewed, edited, and censored” for all the non-Foundation
and non-A.A.-Approved literature it houses.
(Here comes the book burning!)
After several conversations with the GSO general manager
in New York and the trusted servant who handles copyrights
and trademarks, they informed that AAWS and
its law firm do not usually initiate the eBay removal
process. Most of the time, they say, an AA member
calls them about an item that is not A.A.-Approved
Literature and then AAWS calls eBay and requests
removal. GSO trusted servants suggest sellers
list their non-approved items in other categories,
perhaps a category like “12 Step Literature.”
In all cases, the market audience of AA collectors,
etc., is drastically reduced in number and, therefore,
usually results in a lower final auction bid.
Some sellers have tried several ways to keep their
items in the “Alcoholics Anonymous” category: a disclaimer
in the description that states the item is not A.A.-Approved
Literature; use of “Not AA”; use of “About
AA”; inserting a word between Alcoholics and Anonymous;
etc. None have been acceptable to AAWS.
And several hundred AA members, collectors, archivists,
historians, sellers and buyers of non-A.A.-Approved
Literature are not too happy about the AAWS’s
legal actions through eBay’s VeRO program. They
have been punished by AAWS’s actions and threatened
with suspension of their eBay accounts. They
have lost time and work and money.
Why didn’t AAWS take a softer approach from
the beginning? They could have sent out an email
to the “offending” party and asked them to respect
A.A.’s intellectual property. They could
have asked eBay to initiate a new category, “12 Step
Literature,” and post a message on the Alcoholics
Anonymous category directing sellers and buyers to
that site for non-A.A.-Approved Literature.
They could have accepted sellers’ disclaimer in the
description of the item: “This is NOT A.A.-Approved
Literature but the content is about A.A. history,”
etc. Dealers offering a glow-in-the-dark cigarette
lighter with “It Works” and other trinkets know they
are not A.A. approved. What great harm
is done by its sale? AA archivists, collectors,
historians, and other buyers know it’s not A.A.
approved.
Again AAWS has stepped into the outside world
and imposed itself legally on an outside business.
Doesn’t the preamble say A.A. neither opposes nor
endorses outside issues?
This eBay-AAWS mess is not just speculation.
Here is just one email from an A.A. member
who was banned: “A few years ago I was converting
AA Talks from cassette to CD and listing them
on eBay, using the “Alcoholics Anonymous” name
because they were Alcoholics Anonymous talks.
eBay, at the request of AAWS, banned me.
Several people are doing exactly what I did and eBay
(and AAWS) does nothing about it. The
“crime” I committed is no longer against eBay rules.
eBay refuses to listen to my argument.” How
many others have been banned from eBay by AAWS?
A.A.
Legal Rights
Does A.A.W.S. have the legal right to defend
the A.A. name, identity, and intellectual property
in the public sphere? Defend it against what?
A.A. has been blessed with great press support and
cooperation from the media. It has a gold standard
reputation. The Fellowship/society of A.A.,
consistent with Traditions is not organized nor so
it is not a “non-profit organization and, as such
has no legal rights, including protection of its name
and no intellectual or tangible property. A.A.W.S.
is a legal corporation under the laws of the state
of New York and the right accorded a corporation.
The real question is how far should A.A. go
in the legal sphere.
Two examples on the thorny problem: first, many
telephone books list Alcoholics Anonymous but some
disreputable treatment centers have listed themselves
as “Alcoholics Anonymous Referral Service”
to get patients. A drunk calls A.A. and
gets the treatment center. Currently A.A.W.S.
through its trusted servant for copyrights and trademarks
actively pursues such false advertising. And
99% of A.A. members would probably agree those
treatment centers should stop their counterfeit phone
listings. However, some of those phony listings
offer an A.A. referral service and a drunk
can be given information on where AA meetings are
in his geographical area. There is no doubt
the treatment center is fishing for new patients and
abusing the A.A. name; we went through that “institutional
profiteering” by the treatment industry back in the
1980-90s. Remember in the early days when a
national magazine article criticized A.A. meetings
for the sexual “13th step” activities going
on. Bill Wilson laughed and said maybe a drunk
would come for sex and get sober.
The second example: a website called “Alcoholics Anonymous.org”
was not an official A.A. website.
Alcoholics Anonymous filed a claim with the
World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO)
Arbitration and Mediation Center against them, but
lost the case because WIPO said the site displayed
an adequate warning “which goes much further than
an ordinary disclaimer.” The WIPO board also
noted AA encourages anonymity and a decentralized
structure. (for more information see
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-807196.html?legacy=cnet).
In 2000 AAWS went to the WIPO Arbitration and
Mediation Center to have “aarecovery.com” transferred
to AAWS. Aarecovery.com is a chat
room that did not sell products. AAWS accused
them of “confusing the relevant purchasing public.”
What AAWS really objected to was the use of
“aa” in their website address. AAWS lost
its case. There are undoubtedly many other
examples pro and con.
When one considers our new universe of the World Wide
Web, the problem gets really big. A Google©
search turns up over 130,000 links to “Alcoholics
Anonymous.” Some are not official A.A.
sites. For book hunters, a link to ABE booksellers
site reveals over 70 million books from almost 15,000
booksellers.
Many probably list books under a generic “alcoholics
anonymous” name which is not A.A.-Approved
Literature. A web search for “alcoholism treatment”
turns up over 375,000 listings. Some of these
websites probably are abusing the name “Alcoholics
Anonymous.” Bloggers, chat rooms, advertisers
… an endless internet. The world is huge and
next-door and A.A. is in it. How extensive
should A.A.W.S.’s protection of A.A.’s
identity and name be? Do they really own the name
Alcoholics Anonymous? Certainly AA does not
need a staff of ten or twenty-five plus more lawyers
to begin policing the entire Internet world.
American society has become increasingly litigious.
Have a dispute? Sue! Don’t settle and
sign, get a lawyer! The largest section in my
local telephone book is lawyers, over 30 pages of
ads, including the front and back covers. More
than doctors, car dealers, insurance companies, restaurants,
anything. And AAWS and the other corporate
legalists in New York have elevated the legal law
above the Steps, Traditions, and Concepts.
What harm has been done to A.A. by the Akron A.A.
member and I.W.S. who published the facsimile 1939
A.A. Big Book and the paperback big book?
None. What harm has the Mexican and German A.A.
members done by reprinting the AA Big Book?
None. What harm have booksellers on eBay done
to A.A. by offering thousands of A.A. literature
works to A.A. members seeking A.A.
history? None. For the first 50 years of A.A.
the Fellowship has had a sterling reputation and been
recognized as the gold standard in the field because
it avoided self-promotion, public controversy, outside
issues (lawsuits), and the pitfalls of greed, power,
and authority.
A.A. has not needed to defend itself against
critics and enemies because it has had very few and
many more who have praised A.A.
Sadly, since the 1980s A.A.W.S. has employed
lawyers and made enemies within the Fellowship in
Mexico, Germany, the United States and worldwide on
the web and eBay.
And lawyers are not cheap. I requested a research
report from GSO on the cost of lawyers to A.A.
From 1993 to 2005, A.A.W.S. and GSO have spent
$1,527,415. on various legal fees and lawyers.
That’s an average of $117,493/yr. for the 13 years
to protect their copyrights, trademarks, to
kick people off eBay and the internet.
That was the cost to A.A.W.S. The cost
to A.A. members in the U.S., Mexico, Germany,
etc., is hard to estimate, but we know it was $300,000
in Mexico, over $100,000 in Germany and who knows
how much money, time and work it cost the A.A. members
who had 735 items kicked off eBay. GSO furnished
that 735 number in another research report I requested.
My thanks.
Once the door was opened to lawsuits by A.A.W.S.
against A.A. members, is it any wonder that
A.A.W.S. would be sued in turn? It is
not within the boundaries of this article to pursue
this but one can see what happens by going to
http://www.aagso.org/#new, dropping
down the page to “Baldwin Institute” and clicking
there. You will find a ton of new information
on a $20 million lawsuit against A.A.W.S. by
the Baldwin Institute. More lawsuits…
more MONEY. The point is that this legal road
A.A.W.S. is traveling is costing a ton of money
that could be used to carry the message to the suffering
alcoholic.
Minority Voices
“…making the minority voice both clear and loud.”
(Bill W. 1965)
Many minority voices deserve our thanks and commendation
for speaking out and publishing much of the material
in this essay. Work on this paper has included
many prominent A.A. historians, authors, GSC
Delegates, collectors and archivists, trusted servants,
and fine A.A. members. They have agreed
with the basic thesis of this paper and provided material,
guidance, and criticism. Protecting their anonymity,
they know who they are, and I thank them.
They are knowledgeable but the Fellowship-at-large
has been kept in the dark about these issues.
These legal controversies have been kept off the agenda
of the General Service Conference, buried in Trustees
committees (often controlled by those who favor legality
over spirituality), and sidetracked through parliamentary
rules. The majority voice, the thousands of
A.A. Groups, the Fellowship, has been consciously
ignored. No regional forums devoted to the entire
topic. No mention in the AA Grapevine,
Box 4-5-9, or any other A.A. communications
with the groups.
One past delegate from a Northern state had these
comments: The General Service Board of Trustees
and AAWS puts “business before principles.
And the delegates are uninformed and not good enough.
The General Service Conference is so weak. There
is entirely too much publishing. It is time
for some of these trusted servants in New York, including
the general manager of GSO and some Trustees, to either
resign or be fired!” He attended the GSConference,
the last one where Lois W. and Dr. Jack Norris appeared.
He met them. “Back then we couldn’t get any
background material from GSO except for the committee
we served on. We changed that,” he said.
Thus, it is paramount that the minority voice here
and elsewhere speak out.
In that spirit, we recommend the following websites
that have extensive information on the German and
Mexican Big Book disputes, the medallions AA
lawsuit and related topics:
http://aagso.org/
http://www.aamo.info/oppf/OPPF-March2005.pdf
http://www.aamo.info/oppf/OPPF2April2005.htm
http://www.aamo.info/oppf/oppf2005may.pdf
Spiritual
Principles
What spiritual principles of A.A. apply to these problems?
Clearly a review of the Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions
and Twelve Concepts is in order. Here are some
of the principles cited by those involved in these
lawsuits and other problems:
-
Steps Eight and Nine: the Amends Steps.
Clearly harms have been done to many individuals
in these lawsuits, etc.
-
Step Four: Has the General Service Conference
taken a “fearless, searching and moral inventory”
of itself?
-
Step Twelve: practice these principles in
all our affairs. The argument that
the Steps apply “only” to individual A.A.
members will be used by some to justify and rationalize
their corporate legal actions that have caused
much harm to A.A. Trusted A.A.
servants at AAWS, GSO, GSB, the Grapevine,
and Trustees as well as Delegates to the General
Service Conference of A.A. and other A.A.’s
cannot ignore the Steps in their personal lives
nor in their service lives to A.A.
-
Tradition Two: one ultimate authority…a
loving God in our group conscience…our leaders
are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
The ultimate authority in A.A. is the thousands
of A.A. groups which finds its expression
in the General Service Conference of A.A.
-
Tradition Four: Each group should be autonomous
except in matters affecting other groups or A.A.
as a whole.
-
Tradition Six: … lest problems of money,
property and prestige divert us from our primary
purpose.
-
Tradition Seven: …fully self-supporting,
declining outside contributions. Collective poverty.
Necessity of separating the spiritual from the
material. Decision to subsist on A.A. voluntary
contributions only.
-
Tradition Nine: The General Service Conference,
the board of trustees and group committees cannot
issue directives to A.A. members or groups.
A.A.’s can’t be dictated to---individually
or collectively…but we may create service boards
or committees directly responsible to
those they serve.
-
Tradition Ten: A.A. has NO opinion
on outside issues; hence the A.A. name
ought never be drawn into public controversy.
-
Tradition Eleven: …we need always maintain
personal anonymity at the level of press, radio,
and films (and in courts of law by avoiding
them in the first place).
-
Tradition Twelve: Principles before Personalities.
-
Concept Two: The General Service Conference
of A.A. is the actual voice and effective
conscience for our whole Society. It has
complete authority for the active maintenance
of our world services. Sadly, it has been
blocked from exercising that authority by GSO
and AAWS trusted servants in New York.
And…it has itself failed to exercise that authority
over them.
-
Concept Three: the “Right of Decision.”
Every trusted A.A. servant has the right
to make decisions in his particular area of service.
This right “ought never be used as a reason for
constantly exceeding a clearly defined authority,
nor as an excuse for persistently failing to consult
those who are entitled to be consulted before
an important decision or
action
be taken.” Clearly, the G.S.C. has not been
consulted about these major lawsuits and other legal
actions taken in the public domain outside the Fellowship.
-
Concept Four: “the ‘Right of Appeal’ … assuring
us that minority opinion will be heard and that
petitions for the redress of personal grievances
will be carefully considered.” The minority
opinion, perhaps the majority opinion, has not
been heard in the General Service Conference on
these matters. The topic of lawsuits has
never been on the GSC agenda. The
Mexican A.A. to this Right of Appeal has
been totally ignored.
-
(Concept Six will undoubtedly be used by those
supporting the corporate legal actions of AAWS,
etc. Still the GSC has the “final decision
respecting large matters of general policy and
finance.”)
-
Concept Seven: The Conference Charter …
relies instead upon the force of tradition and
the power of the A.A. purse for
its final effectiveness.”
-
Concept Twelve: “…the GSC shall observe
the spirit of the A.A. Tradition…never
becomes the seat of perilous wealth or power…that
none …shall ever be placed in a position of unqualified
authority over any of the others…all important
decisions be reached by discussion, vote, and
whenever possible, by substantial unanimity…no
Conference action ever be personally punitive
or an incitement to public controversy… it shall
never perform any acts of government…the Conference
itself will always remain democratic in thought
and action.”
-
Most importantly, the defendants in the German
and Mexican lawsuits cite Warranty Five “That
no Conference action ever be personally punitive
or an incitement to public controversy.”
It’s All About $$$
A.A. is self-supporting through its own contributions
from members and A.A. groups? The GSC 2005 Final
Report revealed that 44% of the groups contributed
to New York slightly more than $5million. Literature
sales brought in a profit of $5.7 million. The
loss for the year was $312,000. Literature sales
are not group contributions. Clearly the New
York office is dependent on lots of literature sales
and a stream of new publications is necessary.
And anything that threatens those literature sales
is indeed a threat. Is it any wonder then A.A.W.S.’s
actions against anyone or any organization that reprints
the Big Book or other works about A.A.?
Underneath it all is the fact that A.A. is
NOT self-supporting. As one delegate said it’s
“business before principles.” The largest single
buyer of Big Books is reportedly Hazelden. And
they are not charged shipping. Hazelden sells
the Big Book for $10.75 each plus shipping. AA
headquarters in New York sells it for $5. (winter
catalog 2003-04) plus shipping.
Conclusions
1. Somewhere
in the 1980s, probably, a landmark decision in A.A.
history was made to defend and protect the Alcoholics
Anonymous name, the A.A. identity, and
A.A.’s intellectual property of copyrights
and trademarks both within and outside the Fellowship
in public courts of law, both civil and criminal,
and in the World Service Meeting and other A.A.
service entities inside the Fellowship.
2. This has resulted in a long list of
lawsuits against A.A. members and others outside the
Fellowship. Hundreds of thousands of dollars
have been spent in the lawsuits by A.A.; money
not used to carry the A.A. message to the suffering
alcoholic. Punitive actions, public controversy,
and disunity in A.A. have resulted.
A.A. corporations have done all this under the legal
umbrella of corporate law.
Lawsuits will inevitably require the right of
disclosure that will mean that trusted servants and
other A.A. members will have to break their
anonymity in public courts of law. Lawsuits
will spawn news coverage and public controversy about
A.A. as well as disunity, financial difficulties,
and struggles over power and authority within the
Fellowship.
3. The spiritual principles of A.A.,
the Steps, the Traditions and the Concepts and Warranties
therein, have been ignored and superceded by corporate
legalism. In 1987-88, the General Service Conference
approved a major Charter change in Article 2, paragraphs
2, 3, and 4: “In countries where a General Service
Conference exists, the United States/Canada Conference
will delegate (franchise) sole right to publish our
Conference-approved literature to the General Service
Conference of that structure.” This has been
used to sue A.A. members in other countries
and place one Conference in authority over another.
The Mexican and German lawsuits are clear examples
of this. The GSC did not intend nor approve
of this use of the new Article 2.
4. The General Service Conference of A.A.
has seemed powerless to date to correct these legal
abuses of the spirituality of the Fellowship.
The GSC has not discussed the topic of these lawsuits
and other legal issues. It has not even been
put on the GSC agenda. Some trusted servants
in A.A.W.S., GSO, GSB, and Trustees, as well
as GSC members, have blocked any effort to discuss
these legal and spiritual matters in the GSC.
Two advisory actions of the GSC that the GSB, A.A.W.S.,
Inc., and the AA Grapevine initiate NO litigation
in defense of copyrights and trademarks as per Tradition
Ten and Warranty Five failed to pass in 1995-96.
5. The Fellowship has not been informed
of all this by many Delegates. No regional forums
on the topic have been held. No A.A.
communications, letters to A.A. groups, Box
4-5-9, the AA Grapevine, etc., have mentioned
the topic. The thousands of A.A. members
in the U.S. and Canada have been kept in the dark.
As one GSO servant justified: “This doesn’t
rise to the level of a GSC agenda item.”
These legal matters have never reached the floor of
the General Service Conference of A.A.
The Fellowship’s group conscience where the will of
God is to be found? The GSC has not been consulted
about all these legal matters.
6. “There is only one place where spirituality
and money mix and that’s in the Seventh Tradition
basket.”
7. A.A. is a Fellowship of men
and women; not a corporation. One alcoholic
talking to another alcoholic, sharing their drunk
story and their recovery story. A.A.
corporations allegedly were created to serve that
purpose, not thwart it.
and
Solutions …
1. Prayer.
2. The Power of the
PURSE. Stop sending your MONEY to A.A.W.S.
!
This
is the only recourse ordinary A.A. members have left.
3.
Email this article to all your A.A. Friends !
4. Discuss this with
your home group, district, assembly and delegate.
5.
Ask your Delegate to repeal the Article 2 Charter
change and put this
mess on the April 2006 General Service Conference
agenda.
6.
Ask your Delegate to support a moratorium on all lawsuits
or other legal
actions involved in suing or harassing anyone about
copyrights, trademarks, or the A.A. identity
inside or outside of A.A.
7.
Ask your Delegate to put a motion on the floor at
the coming Conference
to censure A.A.W.S., GSO, GSB, GV, and Trustees
for a conspiracy of silence on this mess and failure
to observe A.A.’s Steps, Traditions, and Concepts
Footnotes:
NOTE:
Quotes of the Steps, Traditions and Concepts have
been taken from “official” A.A.-Approved Literature
listed herein.
NOTE: The terms “Alcoholics Anonymous,”
“A.A.” and “AA” when used to identify
a business entity have been italicized
in this article to make clear they ARE not The Fellowship
of Alcoholics Anonymous and ARE one of the entities
and corporations using the name “A.A.” A.A.W.S.
is not the A.A. Fellowship.
NOTE: The term “Big Book®” is a registered trademark
of Alcoholics Anonymous
World Services.
1. Advisory Actions of the General Service
Conference of Alcoholics Anonymous (ADGSCAA)
1951-2004, page 60.
2. summary from an anonymous AA trusted
servant
3. Report of Ad Hoc Committee, Feb. 19, 1996.
4. The A.A. Service Manual – combined
with = Twelve Concepts for World Service by Bill
W. A.A.W.S., 1962-2002, see page
S86. And Advisory Actions of the General
Service Conference of Anonymous Alcoholics
1951-2004. A.A.W.S., 1978-2003, pp 100-101.
5.
ACGSCAA, p67.
Bibliography
1.
Advisory Actions of the General Service Conference
of Alcoholics Anonymous 1951-2004.
A.A.W.S., 1978-2004. 151pp.
2.
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.
3.
Alcoholics
Anonymous, 1939-2004, the Big Book.
4.
Twelve
Steps and Twelve Traditions, 1953-2004.
5.
Alcoholics
Anonymous Comes of Age: A Brief History
of A.A.
6.
Extensive
interviews with A.A. members and trusted
servants, archivists, collectors, authors and historians.
7.
Extensive
use of minority voice websites on these topics.
(thank God for the internet and world wide web)
Other Resources
Below are some excellent websites for your perusal
in addition to the ones listed in the article.
This essay could not have been written without the
internet, world wide web, and the computer.
Explore! It’s called open-mindedness.
About the Author
Charles Bishop, Jr.
is celebrating 30 years as a full-time Antiquarian
Bookseller-Appraiser specializing
in the Literature
of Alcoholics Anonymous and Alcoholism. Over the years
he has issued 46 catalogs of books about alcoholism
for sale. The Bishop of Books is his company name.
He is the co-author with Bill Pittman of To Be
Continued…The Alcoholics Anonymous World Bibliography
1935-1994. He has published 11 books on
A.A. and The History of Alcoholism. He
has appraised the libraries of Dr. Robert H. Smith,
Co-Founder of A.A.; Ernest Kurtz, author of NOT-GOD:
A History of Alcoholics Anonymous; Clarence Snyder,
Cleveland A.A. founder; as well as numerous private
collections. For 12 years he published an annual Sobriety
Calendar. He sold his private alcoholism library of
15,000 items to Brown University where it resides
as The Chester Kirk Collection of Alcoholics Anonymous
and Alcoholism. He has presented topics on alcoholism
history and A.A. at St. Francis Hospital and
IRETA, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Bethany College, Bethany,
WV; West Virginia University Mining School; and Gateway
Treatment Center. He was the West Virginia Area 73
A.A. Archivist for six years. He is a 1960
graduate of Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling,
WV.
He lives at 46 Eureka
Ave., Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 242-2937.
E-mail:
bishopbk@comcast.net
Thanks,
God bless, servus, Charlie Bishop, Jr.
|
GO
BACK
GO
BACK