1

Form 59

Rule 29.02(1)

Affidavit

No. QUD374/2012

Federal Court of Australia

District Registry: Queensland

Division:

ELLEN G. WHITE ESTATE, INC

Applicant

BRENDAN PAUL KNUDSON

Respondent

Affidavit of: Brendan Knudson

Address: The Republic of Armenia Kotayq District, Dzhrvezh Village, Street 42, house 6

Occupation: Self-employed

Date: December 12, 2012

Contents

Document

Number

Details Paragraph Page

BK1 Affidavit of Brendan Knudson 1-18

BK2 Passport and Visa Scans proving Residency in Armenia

during all material times

1, 65 19-24

BK3a Foreign Legislation – United States Copyright Law. Various 25-353

BK3b Foreign Legislation – California Civil Code for 1915 (Title

and Trust section only).

32-35 354-374

BK3c Last Will and Testament of Ellen G. White, dated 1912. 30-31 375-380

BK4a Compilation made in 1940-1950’s to remove non-

Trinitarianism from SDA Church – Evangelism, pp. 613-617.

9 381-386

BK4b Compilation made in 1940-1950’s to remove non-

Trinitarianism from SDA Church – Ministry Magazine, May

1945.

9 387-389

BK4c Compilation made in 1940-1950’s to remove non-

Trinitarianism from SDA Church – Questions on Doctrine

(Later included in Seventh-day Adventist Bible

Commentary, Volume 7A).

9 390-398

BK5a Letter from L. E. Froom to R. A. Anderson dated January 18,

1966 showing Seventh-day Adventist policy interference in

Ellen G. White Estate, Inc affairs.

9, 11, 39 399-400

BK5b Profile of L. E. Froom from Seventh-day Adventist

Encyclopedia.

9, 11, 39 401-403

BK6a Scan of first six Chapters from Book ‘Struggle for the

Prophetic Heritage’ by Gilbert Valentine detailing the

history of restriction of unpublished writings.

29, 36-37 404-444

BK6b La Sierra (Adventist) University faculty page listing Gilbert 29 445-446

2

Valentine as a Seventh-day Adventist employee and expert

in Adventist History.

BK7 Page 14 from book ‘Faith on Trial’ by Donald K. Short and

Robert J. Wieland as testimony of lawsuit threat by the

White Estate.

40 447-449

BK8a Periodical announcing the digitisation of the Ellen White

Letters and Manuscripts, dated 1990.

47 450-451

BK8b Email exchanges from William Fagal, Associate Director of

the White Estate declaring intent to release complete

digitised writings between 1995-2001.

48 452-456

BK8c Scan of preface and page 529 from the book ‘Messenger of

the Lord’ by Herbert Douglass showing decision to release

the writings as early 1998.

48 457-460

BK8d Statement from the Adventist Review regarding the

annotation project estimating release as early as 2005.

49 461-463

BK9a Comparison 1 showing editorial changes to bias towards

the Trinity doctrine – Desire of Ages (1898 and post-1940

Editions), page 671.

41 464-470

BK9b Comparison 2 showing editorial changes to bias towards

the Trinity doctrine – Counsels on Health (1923 and 1957

Editions), pages 4, 561.

41 471-478

BK10 Copy of the Ellen G. White Estate web page containing

misleading statement.

38 479-480

BK11 Pages from the Unpublished Writings website showing

Americanised (“Americanized”) spelling.

26 481-485

BK12 Communication from Samuel Barber stating that delay in

the release of the writings by the White Estate has not

been due to SDAnonymous.

74 486-488

BK13 ICAAN decision that the “ellenwhite.org” was not

confusingly similar to the White Estate’s trademarks.

75 489-497

BK14 White Estate Board Meeting Minutes listed in archive at

the Center for Adventist Research.

Defence E 498-510

BK15a Email written to Samuel Barber, October 25, 2012. 84 511-512

BK15b Email received from Samuel Barber, October 26, 2012. 84 513-514

I, Brendan Knudson, currently living in Armenia, say on oath:

1. I am a citizen of Australia residing in the Republic of Armenia since December 21, 2011.

2. That I have been married to a citizen of the Republic of Armenia since April 13, 2012.

3. That I am self-employed through several internet businesses which I operate in various

countries throughout the world.

My relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the White Estate

4. I was baptised as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on August 21, 1999 after

attending Bible Studies through the Adventist High School, Northpine Christian College in

Dakabin, Australia. Through my Bible Studies I came to believe in the majority of truths that

the Seventh-day Adventist Church taught and came to appreciate the writings of Ellen White

3

as instructive for Christians today. The doctrine of the Trinity was not taught in detail to me

at this time.

5. I attended the Adventist tertiary institute in Australia, Avondale College, between the years

2000-2001 where I became acquainted with the Ellen White Research Center located there. I

had a very friendly relationship with then custodian, Allan Lindsay and was taught by him

and visited with him often.

6. In 2005, while volunteering in youth ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in South

Queensland, through giving Bible studies with an ex-Worldwide Church of God lady, I was

asked questions about the trinity doctrine held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church that I

could not honestly answer.

7. Through research, I discovered that the Seventh-day Adventist Church (officially organised

1863 but begun from a movement in the 1840s) was not initially Trinitarian, but that the

majority of leaders and members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church held a different

Christological and Pneumatological view to the current position on the trinity during the first

50 years since its inception between 1846-1848.

8. When I shared and questioned my mentors in the Church at the time, I was instructed that

such views were no longer tolerated in the Church and that I should accept that God is a

mystery and that the doctrine of the Trinity explains that mystery. The leading theologian of

the South-Queensland Conference, now President of the same, held a 3 hour “Study” with

me where his entire argument was centred around the idea that ‘we can’t know God, but

He’s a trinity.’ I was not able to comfortably accept such self-defeating logic.

9. At this time, I was handed two compilations of Ellen White’s statements purporting to affirm

the Trinity doctrine.

a. The first compilation is a small section of the book Evangelism, published 1946.

b. The second compilation is found today in Appendix A of the Seventh-day Adventist

Bible Commentary, Volume 7A, published 1970, and was originally published in

Ministry Magazine, May 1956 also appearing in Seventh-day Adventists Answer

Questions on Doctrine, published 1957. Many of the quotes from the second

compilation were part of an earlier compilation, appearing in Ministry Magazine,

May 1945. All of these statements appear as documents BK4a, BK4b and BK4c. Leroy

Edwin Froom was editor of Ministry Magazine during this time period.

10. It was presented to me that I had to either accept the trinity doctrine as truth or to give up

my belief in Ellen White as an inspired writer. At no time did anyone seek to answer my

Bible-based questions on the Trinity doctrine. I struggled with these two alternatives until

research allowed me to understand the contextual setting of the statements. I found that

many other statements made by Ellen White could not be harmonised with the Trinitarian

hypothesis and reflected the belief system of the other non-trinitarian founders of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church, including her husband and two sons.

4

11. I discovered early on that the two sets of statements mentioned above were initially

compiled with the sole purpose of eradicating any disagreement to the Trinity doctrine in

the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1940s and 50s. Evidence from the correspondence

of the Seventh-day Adventist Ministerial Association founder, LeRoy Froom shows that

pressure from the Seventh-day Adventist leadership was exerted upon the White Estate to

this end. This letter appears as Document BK5a

12. My decision to both hold to belief in Ellen White and refuse to ignore the inconsistencies in

what was presented to me resulted in my isolation within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

For a short period of 2 months, due to the social upheaval I experienced as a result of

discrimination over honestly held convictions, I entertained grave disapproval of the Church

and asked for my membership to be removed when I was threatened with disfellowship. I

have since moved past the pain of this treatment and regretted my decision to drop my

membership, wishing only to re-join the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

13. In the time since 2006, I have focused my efforts in both Biblical investigation and defence of

self-consistent teachings on Christology and Pneumatology, as well as study of the history of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church with one main area being the writings of Ellen White and

their context. Among those things which my research has uncovered is that the context of

many of the compiled statements in favour of the Trinity doctrine presents a different

reading and sometimes reverses the meaning as Ellen White is shown to be interacting with

the writings of Trinitarians and modifying their words. This research is very difficult with the

monopoly that the White Estate holds over the out-of-copyright and unpublished letters and

manuscripts of Ellen White and other significant Church leaders.

14. On January 31, 2006, I contacted Tim Poirier of the White Estate and asked for copies of

several manuscripts, the context of which I was seeking to research. I received a reply

regarding restricted access to these materials.

15. In February 2006, I visited the Ellen White Research Centre at Avondale College. I was met

with suspicion based on the angle I was wishing to pursue regarding my research. I made the

first of my offers to raise funds for equipment for the Research Centre to aid digitisation in

return for being able to make the digitisation I needed on old periodicals not then available

online. I returned again in late 2007 and spent a month of my annual leave researching

through the archives. I purchased a scanner and acquired a large collection of material,

including many unpublished letters and manuscripts from the Research Centre vault under

the watchful eye of the staff. I had researched copyright law and acquired what I needed at

that time. For the most part, my requests were facilitated, however this was often

begrudgingly.

16. In 2008 I sought to repair as much as possible my relationship with the Seventh-day

Adventist Church. I ceased all public writings against the Trinity doctrine as held by the

Seventh-day Adventist Church with the desire to work with the theologians of the Church

and share my studies with them. I have built and fostered relationships with many

individuals in the Church towards the goal of theological and historical dialogue.

5

17. I attended Avondale College in 2009 to study theology. Though I made every concession to

not be open about my differences with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I encountered

much discrimination on an administrative level with heavy restrictions on which classes I was

allowed to attend. I received excellent marks for all my assignments in this year, including

essays defending the historic position of the Adventist Church on the Doctrine of God, yet

the strain of distrust from certain members of the staff caused problems with my health.

These health problems were used as a reason for certain members of the faculty to decline

continuation at Avondale College until I provided evidence that I was fit for study.

18. I sought access to what I then believed was a local CD-ROM database in 2009 to search for

significant phrases in Ellen White’s writings. Tim Poirier granted permission from the White

Estate, but the Research Centre staff continually found excuses not to accommodate these

requests, with the exception of one manuscript which was printed off for me at one time.

Emails I sent to Tim Poirier and the White Estate after this initial contact went unanswered.

19. Since that time I have placed some more of my research on the internet to aid other

researchers who have followed my lead. The Church has increased its discrimination against

those members who disagree with the official explanations of the Trinity teaching based on

personal Bible Study and research.

20. At the end of 2011 I made several last attempts to obtain some material from the Avondale

Research Centre for analysis during my residence overseas, but again restrictive policies

prevented any access to the database at this time. I informed Research Centre staff at this

time that I would be in Armenia for at least 6 months.

My Relationship, Activities and Knowledge of the group SDAnonymous

21. As I have written several articles available online regarding hermeneutic research into Ellen

White’s writings, and expressing interest in the unpublished works, I was approached

toward the end of 2011 by several individuals through the internet. These were members of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church who held to the writings of Ellen White with high levels of

respect. I came to be involved with this group due to mutual interest in the unreleased

writings of Ellen White.

22. The core group now going by the name SDAnonymous includes several dozen people across

all major continents. They include individuals who have gathered private collections of the

out-of-copyright letters and manuscripts copied from various Research Centres around the

world. The group members come from a variety of views across the cross-spectrum of

Adventism. Initially they had a goal to just pool the collections for a private collection, this

was why I was initially contacted, to see if I had anything to offer. I became involved at a

time I was leaving Australia for Armenia, but I added the manuscripts and letters I had

collected into the collective before leaving.

23. The members of the group continued their collecting at a time I was nowhere near access of

any Ellen White Research facilities. From the discussion within the group, not all of whom I

know the real names of, I understand that the collection of resources by one member of

SDAnonymous had caused the suspicion of a staff member of one of the Centres. This staff

6

member was dissatisfied with the restrictive policies of the White Estate and divulged that

the digital database was actually available online and where it could be found, but they

could not themselves provide access to the materials. It was suggested how this could be

done, though.

24. It was decided before my joining that when the group had access to all the writings a

ministry should be started to release and translate these writings. Due to my knowledge of

internet commerce, it fell upon me to organise domains, hosting and websites and for a

short time, an auto-responder service. Since I was the only non-member of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church, it was decided that clues would be left that would point to myself should

the Church seek a scapegoat, but that I would personally be inactive in anything other than

providing software for compilation and digitisation and an internet platform from which to

conduct the ministry. It was also looked upon as fortuitous that I would be out of Australia

during the time the ministry was launched.

25. As part of the process, I was instructed in the creation of a proxy server in Armenia for

internet activity by members of the group to protect the identities and locations of members

of the group in researching the White Estate website, including for purposes such as

searching the Biography Series freely available published works so heavy traffic could not be

traced to anyone. A search of the traffic the White Estate have recorded should turn up

multiple simultaneous contacts from the same IP in Armenia to confirm this.

26. I have not been actively involved in any actions that have been alleged in the Applicants

Affidavits. The so-called “proof” of my activity comes from an unavoidable trail which the

group decided to point to me and which includes a username close to one of my favoured

usernames – withgirdedsword. I have intentionally had limited awareness of what has

happened regarding the alleged activities so I can have deniability, and have focused

primarily on the legitimate business-related aspects I have mentioned above around my

personal business ventures. Even the content of the website included Americanised spelling

which I never use (see Document BK11), including “center”, “color”, “endeavor” ,

“skeptical”, “fueled”.

27. The material that is being released by SDAnonymous so far includes at least 70% material

that has been copied legitimately from research centres around the world. Where we have

made use of material acquired differently, we have always checked with either our privately

held copies of manuscripts, or against the manuscripts and letters on file at research centres

around the world. Where our heading information disagrees with the White Estate, it has

been through comparing of letters and manuscripts with each other, with the Ellen G. White

Biography Series, and with the movements of the White family as presented in the early

Periodicals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, many of which were founded by James

White. I have had some input into this historical research.

Ellen White and the Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.

28. Ellen White was a resident of California from 1901 until her death in 1915, residing in the

Napa Valley.

7

29. During her lifetime, Ellen White composed at least 4 wills according to Gilbert Valentine,

PhD, an employee of the Seventh-day Adventist tertiary institution, La Sierra University (See

Document BK6b).

“W. C. White relates that in her closing years his mother sought legal advice and

considered several different options for the framing of an appropriate will and the

appointment of trustees.”

Valentine reports that Ellen White wished that the management of her writings be separate

from the organisation of the Church.

"She had begun to worry that appointment of the trustees by the General

Conference Committee would not necessarily be a secure way to safeguard the

interests of her work particularly if certain men on the General Conference

Committee would be appointed as trustees... In 1912, she therefore again revised

her will finally settling on an arrangement by which she herself would name her

trustees. This group would then become a self-perpetuating independent group and

would appoint their own successors."

30. The last will and testament of Ellen White, found in Document BK3c was composed in 1912,

under the California Civil Code, and named five men - William C. White, Clarence C. Crisler,

Charles H. Jones, Arthur G. Daniells, and Frank M. Wilcox - as trustees of her manuscript

collection.

31. In it she states her intention that the trustees publish the manuscripts.

“I hereby give, devise, and bequeath to William C. White, Clarence C. Crisler, Charles

H. Jones, Arthur G. Daniells, and Frank M. Wilcox… my general manuscript file and all

indexes pertaining thereto… TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said real and personal

property until said trustees, and their successors, upon the trust to enter into and

upon and take possession of the said real estate and said personal property…

publishing and selling said books and manuscripts.”

She further states her intentions that the manuscripts be published by her trustees

“If the entire remainder of said net proceeds from my said properties is more than

sufficient to pay my said debts... then my said trustees shall use the over-plus for the

improvement of the books and manuscripts held in trust by them... for the printing

of compilations from my manuscripts...”

32. According to the California Civil Code (the Code) which governs the last will and testament

of Ellen White, as it read in 1915, in Title VIII (TRUSTS) § 2218 ‘PARTIES TO A CONTRACT’,

there are three parties to any trust. (See Document BK3b)

“The person whose confidence creates a trust is called the truster; the person in

whom the confidence is reposed is called the trustee; and the person for whose

benefit the trust is created is called the beneficiary.”

8

33. The beneficiaries for her manuscript collection are not explicitly stated, but may be inferred

as those who they would read them upon publication. Ellen White made this clear in a letter

to one those she would name as custodian, F. C. Wilcox, dated October 23, 1907 and

published in 1913 as Pamphlet 116, ‘The Writing and Sending Out of the Testimonies to the

Church.’

“Whether or not my life is spared, my writings will constantly speak, and their work

will go forward as long as time shall last. My writings are kept on file in the office,

and even though I should not live, these words that have been given to me by the

Lord will still have life and will speak to the people.”

Ellen White here states that “the people” are the intended beneficiaries of the “writings …

kept on file”. Because this letter was sent to a future trustee, it legally enlarges the scope of

the will according to § 2254 of the Code relating to ‘Trusts for the Benefit of Third Persons’.

“All declarations of a truster to his trustees, in relation to the trust, before its

acceptance by the trustees, or any of them, are to be deemed part of the

declaration of the trust, except when a declaration of trust is made in writing, all

previous declarations by the same truster are merged therein.”

34. According to § 2228 of the Code, the trustees have an obligation to good faith.

“In all matters connected with his trust, a trustee is bound to act in the highest good

faith towards his beneficiary, and may not obtain any advantage therein over the

latter by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat, or adverse pressure

of any kind.”

Moreover, in § 2258 of the Code, a trustee is bound to obey the terms of a trust unless

changes are made by all interested parties (i.e. truster, trustees and beneficiaries).

“A trustee must fulfil the purpose of the trust, as declared at its creation, and must

follow all the directions of the truster given at that time, except as modified by the

consent of all parties interested, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as an

employee.”

§ 2231 of the Code forbids the trustee from using their position to give them advantage over

the beneficiaries.

“A trustee may not use the influence which his position gives him to obtain any

advantage from his beneficiary.”

§ 2234 of the Code counts as fraud any failure to fulfil their obligation as related in § 2228

and § 2231.

“Every violation of the provisions of the preceding sections of this article is a fraud

against the beneficiary of a trust.”

9

35. The Code, in § 2236, makes a distinction between the property of the trust and the property

of the trustees, showing that trusteeship does not confer absolute ownership over the

property.

“A trustee who wilfully and unnecessarily mingles the trust property with his own, so

as to constitute himself in appearance its absolute owner, is liable for its safety in all

events, and for the value of its use.”

Thus in can be understood that while possession and custodianship now resides with the

trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate, Incorporated, the beneficiaries with true ownership

are those to whom Ellen White intended her writings to be read.

36. Valentine reports that due to financial difficulties in settling her estate, the General

Conference of the SDA Church took action to settle the debts of the estate and the

agreements they secured in doing so largely set aside the terms of Ellen White’s will.

Referencing a document written by James Nix, current president of the White Estate,

Valentine states,

“According to a strong family tradition, intense pressure was brought to bear on W.

C. White to sign the 1916 'Mutual Agreement' with possible veiled threats being

made if he didn't. In signing the agreement W. C. White signed away virtually all his

rights with the exception of the manuscripts and the office library. In effect, because

of the financial exigencies, the will, as Nix observes, had been largely abrogated. The

estate had been sold to the General Conference.”

The agreement allowed the manuscript files and indexes to remain with the trustees, but

introduced a conflict of interest into the trusteeship, as the interests of the General

Conference of Seventh-day Adventists were able to be exerted over the White Estate at the

detriment of the intended beneficiaries of the writings of Ellen White. This conflict of

interest carried into the trustees where the General Conference president, A. G. Daniells was

also elected as chairman of the trustees. The policy of the trustees was immediately contrary

to the terms of the trust for the publishing of the manuscripts for the beneficiaries.

“The trustees did not have to wait for the financial details to be settled, however,

before taking on their broader duties. They first met as a complete board on

October 28 and 29, 1915. But right from the very first meeting issues raised their

heads that were to trouble the relationship between the General Conference and

Elmshaven for years to come. Concerns were expressed about the possibility of the

use of unpublished materials. Wilcox mentioned concerns held by the brethren

about the manuscript file and proposed that nothing be published that had not

already been published. W. C. White as secretary noted in his minutes that 'although

no motion was adopted' it was the consensus of the group that unpublished

materials would not be released. White noted that he did not agree with this stance

personally but that he was determined that his actions 'would be governed by the

decisions of the trustees.'”

10

37. The disagreement among the trustees over the release of the unpublished materials

eventually caused W. C. White to begin independently releasing writings from the vault in

compilations on ‘Medical Evangelism’ and ‘Gospel Temperance’. This resulted in censure by

the Church leadership. Valentine states,

“According to C. H. Watson, A. G. Daniells explained that during the 1915-1930

period General Conference leaders ‘did not sense their responsibility in relation to

Sister White's work.’ Nor did the trustees understand their full responsibility. As is

clear from the board minutes cited above, trustees Daniells, Wilcox and C. H. Jones

of the Pacific Press, were all of the view that following the death of Ellen White, the

manuscript vault should simply be locked up. Spicer, as General Conference

president following Daniells apparently felt the same. In fact, it seems they took a

proactive stance to actually discourage release of unpublished material. Sometime

before Arthur White's death in an interview with Dr George Knight and Dr Robert

Olsen, White related an occasion when both A. G. Daniells and W. A. Spicer walked

into W. C. White's office at Elmshaven and threatened that if there were any further

releases of material, they would act to cut his salary from the General Conference.”

38. The trustees legally incorporated as the Ellen G. White Estate, Inc. under California law in

1933. However, their official website (see Document BK10) makes the misleading and

deceptive statement that, “The Ellen G. White® Estate, Incorporated, is an organization

created by the last will and testament of Ellen G. White…” This claim is repeated on the Ellen

G. White Estate’s Facebook page, and across several sites which contain professional listings

of their organisation. The Last Will and Testament of Ellen White contains no reference to

the White Estate which did not exist until almost 2 decades after her death.

39. Church leaders began using the White Estate to settle doctrinal matters in the Church after

W. C. White died in 1937, as mentioned earlier. LeRoy Froom’s statement to Roy Allen

Anderson is included here as document BK5a as evidence.

40. In the 1950s, the White Estate threatened to sue Seventh-day Adventist pastors Robert J.

Wieland and Donald K. Short for including in their written research material gathered from

unpublished manuscripts and letters from privately held collections after they were denied

access to the vaults.

“They had written it without access to the Ellen White vault, in fact access had been

denied. They had used many published statements such as Testimonies to Ministers,

etc., but all the citations from unpublished Ellen White materials had come from

various unoffcial sources, retired workers, and duplicate copies of original typings

that she had placed in the hands of trusted workers in her lifetime. (All of these

documents are of course now freely available in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials.

Our using these unpublished materials had even evoked from the White Estate a

threat of possible legal action against us.)” (From the book ‘Faith on Trial’, by Short

and Wieland, see Document BK7).

41. The White Estate have not only used small fragmentary excerpts of Ellen White’s

unpublished writings out of context to pursue doctrinal agendas, but have actually edited

11

the text of published works to further the same agenda. Two examples are provided here,

though the full extent of editorial mismanagement cannot be determined while the White

Estate holds a monopoly on the Unpublished Writings.

a. From 1940 onwards, the book Desire of Ages received capitalisation to increase

biased interpretation of Ellen White’s words (see Document BK9a).

b. The second edition of the compilation “Counsels on Health” (originally printed in

1923) changed pronouns referencing the Holy Spirit from “it” to “He” (See

Document BK9b). This despite the preface saying “the text of this book is

unchanged”.

The Unpublished Writings of Ellen White

42. The manuscripts and letters held in possession of the Ellen G. White Estate, Incorporated

passed out of copyright in 2003.

43. The registrations provided by Darryl Thompson do not include a registration for the

unpublished letters and manuscripts located at the White Estate vault in Silver Springs, MD.

44. The registrations for “Manuscript Releases” volumes 1-21 include only the published

compilation of unregistered primary documents located at the Estate vault and at the 21

research facilities throughout the world.

45. Moreover, the “Computer File” registered May 5, 2012 only covers the White Estate’s

digitisation of the file contents from their vault.

46. Because the unpublished primary sources were unregistered by December 31, 2002, they

entered public domain in 2003. The 2012 registration does not qualify as a publication, nor

does it satisfy the extension requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976 (see Document

BK3a). Had the White Estate published these unpublished documents between 1978 and the

end of 2002, they would have qualified for protection up to the year 2048.

47. The White Estate digitised the entire unpublished letter and manuscript collection by 1988.

Darryl Thompson’s chart in paragraph 37 of his affidavit affirms this. The White Estate

released information about this digitisation to the Church at least as early as 1990 (see

document BK8a).

48. The White Estate, went on the record between 1995-2001 as saying that the complete

writings of Ellen White, including unpublished portions, would be released with earliest

expected dates between 1997-1998. See Document BK8b and BK8c for evidence of this

intent to publish a searchable CD-Rom. Evidence from Darryl Thompson’s aforementioned

chart shows that this conversion to the file format of other CD-Rom releases was completed

by 2002.

49. At some point between 2002 and 2003, the intention to release the finished CD-Rom was

discontinued and replaced with plans for a series of printed annotated volumes, the first of

which was to initially cover the years 1845-1859. This project was begun in 2003 and was

first announced for release in 2005, see document BK8d. Since then, the answer regarding

this project has been to put off publication a year at a time until now. That it has taken 10

12

years to publish 15 years of Ellen White’s 70 years of writings (when later individual years

include nearly as many writings as all the first 12 combined) shows that the White Estate is

not serious about their stated intention of releasing this material to the public in the late

1990s. At such a rate, even if they increase their pace, most people now working on the

project will be retired by the time it is completed.

50. Moreover, the complete published works, including many copyrighted materials, are freely

available and searchable on the Applicant’s website. From our sources, we understand that

including the unpublished material on this website would be no more effort than changing

permissions of their website.

51. SDAnonymous members have discovered nothing in all the unpublished writings collected

over the last decade to call into question Ellen White’s status as a messenger of God to the

Seventh-day Adventist Church. In many cases, seeing the original manuscripts has helped to

satisfy against “hearsay” from websites hostile to Ellen White as well as the mission and

message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

52. By reading the Unpublished Writings in conjunction with freely available historical

documents such as those on the Office of Archives document site, as well as the freely

searchable Ellen G. White Biography series, authored by Ellen White’s grandson, we see no

reason why there needs to be such an extended waiting period for an annotated edition

before the release of these documents.

53. SDAnonymous does not devalue such historical context and research as an annotation

project would bring. It is just not seen as necessary that the material undergo this

annotation project before release when the White Estate were ready to publish a CD-Rom as

early as 2002. The only reason we can think of is that they are trying to carefully craft the

context to preserve a specific image of Ellen White, her life and her teachings that has been

promoted since the middle of last century.

54. We know of many individuals, both members of SDAnonymous and general Seventh-day

Adventists who would have gladly joined in volunteering alongside White Estate staff in

researching for the annotated edition. The astronomical cost of over $1,000,000 dollars

seems irresponsible for an organisation which receives donations.

55. The policies of the Ellen G. White Estate in restricting access to the unpublished writings of

Ellen White since 2003 by means of Copyright claims are an example of the phenomenon

known as Copyfraud and are technically a criminal offence under the Copyright Act of 1976,

17 U.S.C. § 506(c). The pooling and publication whether commercial or free of collected

manuscripts does not constitute a breach of copyright laws.

My Awareness of These Proceedings

56. I was aware when I consented to the work the group known as SDAnonymous was doing

that I may become the subject of the White Estate’s investigations. The truth is that I believe

in the work that SDAnonymous are doing to make available the writings of Ellen White, a

work that I believe to be in harmony with the stipulations of the last will and testament of

13

Ellen White as well as intentions of the White Estate from the late 1990s as demonstrated in

the previous section. I allowed myself to be the subject of investigation for several reasons.

a. I have limited myself to activities such as creating a web presence, researching and

compiling the ebooks.

b. I satisfied myself that the materials were out of copyright and therefore not subject

to infringement of copyright laws.

c. I was going to be overseas for an extended duration so as not to possibly be seen to

be in breach of Australian law at the time as I have a high respect for the laws of my

country.

57. I was first made known of the actions of legal counsel for the White Estate at around on

August 2nd at 3am my local time when my mother, Debra Knudson, messaged me concerning

the visit of Ronald George Nankervis to her home. Mr. Nankevis served orders intended for

me upon my Autistic brother having previously visited the property under false pretences.

This visit left my brother in a state of panic and I had to calm him down over Facebook.

58. I could not act until my mother returned from work as Ashley was not capable of sharing the

information he had been given. When my mother returned home, I learned some of the

basic information from her but wished to hear from the Ferguson-Cannon Lawyers

personally. My mother told me that upon speaking to a private investigator acting as an

agent for the Applicant and a lawyer for the office of the agent, she learned that her house

had been watched and that the visit of my other brother, Joseph Knudson, two weeks

earlier, had been confused as my return to the address. She informed me that she was told

that this is what launched the action of the Applicant.

59. I attempted over the course of the weekend to speak to someone with interest in my case,

speaking first to Byran Cannon and then to Samuel Barber after he emailed me with his

contact details.

60. When I spoke with Samuel Barber I stated that I was outside of Australia. His affidavit states

that I “would not divulge [my] exact location”. The truth is, he never asked and I was under

no obligation to offer the information.

61. I agreed to the terms of the initial order for myself, but I could not make guarantees on

behalf of other members of the group I was associated with. I did so based on good faith

even though the orders were not binding upon me as a resident of another country.

62. On August 7, I received the documents promised by Samuel Barber and have spent time

looking them over.

Response to Submission Filed by the Applicants

63. The characterisations of my behaviour in dealings with Applicant as “demanding” should be

seen in the light of the religious discriminatory bias which accompanies the differences over

the doctrine of the Trinity. This is evidenced by the undertone of suspicion characterising the

correspondence between John Skrzpaszek and Tim Poirier. Mr Skrzpaszek shows this bias by

14

phrases like “lots of damage” (referring to the fact that my research had been gaining

interest among some students), “very angry and somewhat nasty individual”, “not stable”,

“ongoing problem”. His only evidence for any of these things is either my religious

convictions which differ with his or the fact that I wished to speak to someone above him

who had the capacity to comment on White Estate policy.

64. The major accusation of motive made by the Applicant is a record of requests for

information from the Unpublished Letters and Manuscripts file in the White Estate. From

the correspondence SDAnonymous has received through the ministry, many people have

reported making such requests to the Applicant. In fact, a search of the Digital Resource

Centre (http://drc.whiteestate.org) shows many such requests over the years of the White

Estate’s existence. My motive is thus not unique, but represents a widely held sentiment

from within Seventh-day Adventism. This can be further seen from the almost 1000 names

on a petition created by myself for these proceedings at

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-ellen-white-writings-release-petition.

In answer to Submissions that “There is a Serious Question to be Tried” (Copyright Infringement,

The Anti-Circumvention Provision, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct)

65. I have been a resident of Armenia since December 21, 2011. I left Australia on December 19

and travelled to Armenia where I have been since then. I first took out a 120-day Visa and

renewed this in April and again in August of this year. I am married to a citizen of Armenia

and eligible for perpetual renewal of my visa as long as I wish to live here. Documentary

evidence of a Visa scan for the period of alleged activity is found as Document BK2.

66. My residency in Armenia covers the entire time I am alleged to have hacked the White

Estate database, stated by Robert Pickle to have occurred between February 17 and April 9

of 2012. As I have been living outside of Australia for the duration the Applicants allege I was

involved in certain activities until now:

a. The Applicant’s claim does not fall within the original jurisdiction of the court as

outlined in section 19 of the Federal Court of Australia act, 1976 and section 131C of

the Copyright Act 1968

b. The original order of the Court was served inappropriately without application for

leave to serve originating application outside Australia according to 10.43 of the

Federal Court Rules.

c. The original order and subsequent extensions do not meet the requirements of a

type of proceeding listed under 10.42 of the Federal Court Rules. There remains nil

evidence in all the material presented that any action occurred within Australia, that

I was present in Australia at any time the alleged activity occurred, or that any

damages occurred while in Australia.

d. The Australian Copyright Act of 1968 is not binding upon any participation I have had

with the group SDAnonymous while residing outside Australia. According to section

195AX, “it is not an infringement of an author’s moral right in respect of a work to

do, or omit to do, something outside Australia”.

15

e. Section 116AM of the Australian Copyright Act of 1968 specifies that the Division 2A,

Subdivision A - “Technological Protection Measures” - “applies to acts done in

Australia”. The Applicant’s Submission states that, “there is sufficient evidence to

suggest that the acts of circumvention have in fact been undertaken by the

Respondent in Australia.” If the Applicant believes the acts to have occurred in

Australia, then I am disqualified as being involved. However, if the Applicant believes

the acts to have been performed by me, then the actions are not covered by the

Technological Protection Measures division of the Copyright Act.

67. In the U.S. according to § 303 of the Copyright Act 1976, “Copyright in a work created before

January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from

January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however,

shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work

is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before

December 31, 2047.”

68. According to U.S. Law, the registered copyright of the “Manuscript Releases” series of 21

Volumes does not in any way affect the use of the pre-existing manuscripts and letters upon

which they are based. §103 states, “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work

extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from

the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the

preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or

enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the

preexisting material.”

69. This would also apply to the “Computer File” registered after the actions of hacking alleged

to have been performed by myself. Moreover, similarities between the Volumes being

released by SDAnonymous and the “Computer File” may be attributed to:

a. The identical pre-existing material (Letters and Manuscripts of Ellen White) which is

the foundation for both works.

b. The “fair use” made of additional comments in the Computer File for “criticism” and

“comment” under section § 107 wherein that Computer File is accessible at

terminals at Andrews University in Michigan of the United States.

70. Under the charge of “misleading and deceptive conduct”, the Submission asserts several

misrepresentations of fact:

a. “what is being sold is the consequence of substantial efforts by the Applicant (the

Database has cost over $1 million to establish)”. This statement does not represent

the facts as presented in paragraph 37 of Darryl Thompson’s affidavit. The cost

attributed to the Database should not include the estimated $1,000,000 that has

been spent on the “Roland Karlman 1847-1859 Vol. 1 Annotated Project” which is

not specifically a part of the Database.

b. “what is being sold is the consequence of unlawful hacking by the Respondent of the

Database”. This states as fact what has yet to be proven before a legal body. At

16

present it is merely allegations as it pertains to my involvement. It does not factor in

the claim that many documents have been collected purposefully over a period of a

decade by a fairly large group of individuals.

c. “there is no authority from the Applicant to reproduce or publish the copyrighted

Writings”. This assertion assumes the existence of copyright outside of Australia. It

has been demonstrated above that no Copyright has been infringed by myself or

SDAnonymous in Australia.

d. “what is being sold are altered versions of the writings of White.” The Applicant has

admitted that it has engaged in “editorial” work of the Letters and Manuscripts

itself, including as part of Darryl Thompson’s estimation of costs. The accusation of

“altered versions” is a negative spin placed upon the same type of editorial work

performed by SDAnonymous as the White Estate has engaged in. In contrast it is

alleged that I, the Respondent, “represents that what he is publishing a (sic) true

version of the writings of White”. In the ebooks is clearly stated in the introduction,

“We have attempted to be as true to her grammar as possible and have removed

many of the suggested editorial comments by White Estate workers…”

In answer to Submissions that “Irreparable Injury Will be Suffered”.

71. The “Injury” alleged in this submission assumes as fact Copyright and geographical issues

shown to be outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia.

72. The public domain nature of the materials in the country of origin shows there to be no

reason why the releases of SDAnonymous shouldn’t “[continue] to be able to be accessed by

the public”. Nor is it a requirement for the Applicant to know the identities of all who have

“copied or downloaded” public domain material with fair use editorial inclusions.

73. SDAnonymous are not seeking to have the White Estate’s “substantial efforts” “wasted”.

The Applicant is free to engage in their own release of these public domain materials to gain

“financial reward”. They have since 2002 had the database in a format conducive to

commercial release alongside their Complete Published Database, presently in its 3rd edition

(2009). The releases of SDAnonymous are not hindering the Applicant from releasing this.

On the contrary, the policy of SDAnonymous is to disband upon such action taken by the

White Estate which would render the work of SDAnonymous in regards to these writings

obsolete.

74. Moreover, in recent correspondence with lawyers for the Applicant, in an attempt to

negotiate a settlement, it was stated on behalf of the Applicant that “Any delay [in the

release of the writings by the White Estate] that has resulted is due to the amount of time

and work involved in preparing the Works, nothing more.” This refutes the claim that the

actions of SDAnonymous have caused delays in the release by the Applicant. I include this

email as Document BK12 of this Affidavit under exceptions (2)(e), (2)(g) and possibly (2)(h) of

section 131 of the Evidence Act 1995.

75. In regards to “the public” being “mislead” and “confusion in the Church”, it has been

demonstrated that the Applicant itself engages in misleading information regarding it being

17

an “organization created by the last will and testament of Ellen G. White…” These sorts of

charges are contingent upon the bias one holds in viewing the situation. The Applicant has

alleged “confusion” in the past. In “Ellen G. White Estate, Inc. v. Cary Mayo

c/o Calvary Community Church”, 2006, the Applicant was denied relief against charges of

“confusion” over Trademark in an ICAAN case. (See document BK13)

Regarding the Request for an Anton Pillar Search Order

76. I have provided satisfactory evidence that I have not resided in Australia since December 19,

2011 and that since December 21 have been a resident of Armenia. The information that the

Applicant acquired through a private investigator talking to my brother, Ashley Knudson,

who suffers from the disability of Autism, is inaccurate. According to Affidavit filed by my

mother

77. The carrying out of a search order on the address of my mother, Debra Knudson, would only

serve as an inconvenience to her and my brother Ashley and be an embarrassment to the

Applicant and the Court.

78. I thereby request that the application of the Applicant for a Search Order be dismissed for

want of prosecution under 35.32 (d) of the Federal Court Rules.

Desire for Negotiations

79. The evidence that the Applicant has provided has been shown to be deficient on

fundamental levels, especially as regards my location. At no time did the Applicant or a

representative of the Applicant attempt to contact either myself or the SDAnonymous group

through easily accessible contact medium to take genuine steps as required by the Civil

Dispute Resolution Act 2011. My business email address was readily available online and the

SDAnonymous website contained the email address for the group yet the Applicant nor

agents for the Applicant never contacted either email address, even though they engaged a

private investigator to observe my mother’s residence.

80. Despite the actions of the Applicant being poorly organised, I submit that neither myself nor

the members of SDAnonymous, wish to see the Applicant spend large amounts of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church’s money in a costly legal battle. Already we estimate that they

have spent on court fees, lawyer fees and private investigator fees monies which would have

been better served through their translation work.

81. I and the group of SDAnonymous are not antagonistic or hostile to the Applicant. We believe

that the Applicant has been deficient in the work of releasing the unpublished manuscripts,

and that we were operating in line with intentions declared in writing by agents of the

Applicant in the late 1990s.

82. We would seek to negotiate with the Applicant in reaching a suitable outcome for all parties

involved with myself in a position as representative of the mission of SDAnonymous. I and

the members of the group would be happy for an amicable resolution not only to these

proceedings, but between the group SDAnonymous and the Applicant.

18

Regarding the Orders of October 10 and the Applicant’s request for Relief dated December 11

83. According to the Orders by the court, dated October 10, the Applicant was to serve further

particulars to me by October 24.

84. I contacted the Samuel Barber on October 25, to say that the deadline was passed. He

replied on October 26 that they “apologise for the delay however we do not anticipate that

you have suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay.”(See Document BK15a and BK15b)

85. I did not receive the “Further and Better Particulars” until November 7, 2 weeks after they

were due.

86. The delay in filing defence and other documents has been due to having to examine the

annexure filed with the “Further and Better Particulars” against the evidence we have and

we have taken only the same time as the Applicant took beyond the deadline – 14 days.

Regarding lack of ability to swear according to Federal Court Rules

87. My residence in Armenia makes it impossible for me to swear this affidavit before an

approved witness according to the Federal Court Rules. I ask for a special exemption due to

the fact that there is no Australian Embassy in Armenia where I live, and the British Embassy

here charges the equivalent of up to $50 per page that needs to be legally witnessed.

88. All the facts and circumstances herein deposed to are within my knowledge save such as are

deposed to from information only and my means of knowledge and sources of information

appear on the face of this my affidavit.

Sworn/Affirmed by the deponent

at Adonts Street

in the Republic of Armenia

on December 11, 2012

_____________________________________

Signature of deponent