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history of restriction of unpublished writings.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