To Gary B and Lee N -
this is a very long reply

The Germany and Mexico lawsuits are
historic AA milestones whether or not they
are viewed as infamous. Their history should
be chronicled showing the viewpoints of both
supporters and critics. Many AA members
have staked out a position, some with
reasoned argument and others with vitriol.

The Traditions and Concepts are often cited
as inviolable and near scriptural
commandments that predetermine what the
conduct of those who brought the lawsuit
should have been. Similar scrutiny is rarely
directed at the German member who was
found guilty of breaking the law. He is
typically portrayed as a noble victim
absolved of his legal infractions because he
wanted to do "12th Step activity." Those who
stopped him from breaking the law are
typically portrayed as villains having "hateful
intentions."

While it may be hard for some AA members
to swallow, bodies of codified principles
exist that take precedence over the Steps,
Traditions and Concepts. They consist of
state and national laws and treaties having
the effect of law. Neither the Traditions nor
Concepts nor claims of doing "12th step
activities" provide a refuge of extralegal
privilege to evade the law and the resulting
consequences of its infraction.

When AA members are involved in 12th Step
calls, it does not grant them extralegal
privileges to exceed speed limits or ignore
red lights on the way to carry AA's message.
Similarly, if AA members are unhappy with
a Big Book translation, it does not endow
them with extralegal privilege to print their

own preferred version in violation of
copyright laws with the alibi that it is "12th
Step activity."

Events leading up to the German lawsuit
were premised on claims that the translation
of the German Big Book lacked words
denoting "spiritual" and instead substituted
words denoting "psychological" and
"intellectual." Those claims were bogus. The
website that supported the German member
carried the following statements:

----------
"A scientific research revaled [sic]
differences between BBSG and German GSO
versions of the big book.

BBSG translated the multilith manuscript,
because we were sure there were no
restrictions by any copyright protection on it.
German GSO sold a translation of 1983
based on the 3rd Edition of 1976, but this
had many mistakes. For example: The 11
chapters contain the word "spiritual" 108
times in the multilith manuscript and 106
times in the 3rd Edition. The translation of
1983 contains the word "spiritual" only eight
times. Caused by anti-spiritual resentments it
was mostly replaced by "seelisch --
psychological" and/or by "geistig --
intellectual". This, among other faults,
diluted the spiritual foundations of our
recovery program and resulted in an
extremely high relapse rate of more than
95% among German AA members. We felt
obliged to take action. Our BBSG translation
of [sic] has the correct German word
"spirituell". There is more background
information available at [.]"
----------

The notion of a 95% relapse rate is inane and
unsubstantiated (but often repeated these
days in AA as part of various agendas). That
piece of fiction stems from the
misinterpretation of a single graph in a 1989
GSO report on preceding AA membership
surveys.

Attempting to link bogus Big Book
translation "mistakes" to the equally bogus
95% relapse rate as cause and effect is
beyond absurd. Claiming that the translators
were motivated by "anti-spiritual
resentments" illustrates the disparaging
hyperbole that has permeated and polluted
commentary on the matter from its onset.

The BBSG research was anything but
"scientific." In their web site statement
the German word "giestig" was defined to
only mean "intellectual." It has several
meanings "spiritual" being one of them. The
word "seelisch" (derived from the German
word "seele" or "soul") was defined to only
mean "psychological" when it too has several
meanings one of which is also "spiritual."
The German member asserted that the word
"spirituell" should have been used to denote
the English word "spiritual." That's how the
whole episode started. It was all a matter of
semantic preference.

Two Word documents were available that
purported to demonstrate the shortcomings in
the 1983 and 1996 German Big Book
translations. After personally examining both
of them line by line it was plainly evident
that claims of translation shortcomings were
disingenuous and far more delusional than
definitive.

The Big Book copyright has expired only in
the US and is still in force outside the US
through international treaty agreements.

In the portion of the Concept 12 essay on
Warranty 5, Bill W wrote "It was recognized
that a public lawsuit is a public controversy,
something in which our Tradition says we
may not engage." His statement was in
reference to a matter in the early 1950s of
whether AA should petition Congress for
congressional incorporation of the name
"Alcoholics Anonymous."

The Conference decision was "no" but
matters changed over time and the name
"Alcoholics Anonymous" and "A.A." were
legally registered in 1972. Likewise Bill W's
statement about lawsuits is not frozen in
perpetuity. Hopefully, AA has not reached
the mind-set of "Mathew, Mark, Luke and
Bill" in interpreting Bill W's writings. His
Traditions essays of the mid-1940s to early
1950s and his Concepts essays from the
early 1960s most certainly did not anticipate
such things as the world-wide internet,
desk-top publishing, digitization and the
international explosion of treaties and laws
protecting intellectual property rights.

From the material I've collected over the past
years, the lawsuit episode suffers from a lack
of balance and civil discussion in presenting
both sides of the issue. The greatest part of
the internet data consists of rather harsh
accusations against the Board, AAWS and
GSO at times portraying them as deriving joy
out of the episode or having little better to do
than seek out errant AA members to punish
them.

Something that is not well known in regard to
lawsuits occurred at the 1993 and 1995
Conferences. The 1993 case involved the
circle and triangle lawsuit. It was dropped
and so were some recommendations of a
special ad hoc committee formed the prior
year to address the matter. The ad hoc

committee's recommendation that "The
Conference find that the initiation of
litigation involving trademarks and service
marks is a violation of Warranty Five"
wound up as "not considered" in the
Conference proceedings.

The 1995 Conference concerned both the
situation in Mexico and the German lawsuit.
The 1995 Conference voted not to consider
several proposed floor actions in the
Conference proceedings. Among them:

Not considered: "Area 44 [Northern New
Jersey] requests that the 21 trustees of the
General Service Board of Alcoholics
Anonymous meet with representatives of the
two service structures in Mexico (Central
and Seccion). The purpose of this meeting, if
needed, is to mediate the conflict and to bring
to the 1996 Conference recommendations
which would preclude reoccurrence of this
type of conflict in any other
situation/country."

Not considered: "Seccion Mexico has sent
three letters to our General Service
Conference asking the Conference to review
their petitions of grievance, which is their
right under Concept V of World Service. To
fulfill our spiritual responsibility I propose
the following motion: "That this Conference
review and discuss these petitions and
forward a response to Seccion Mexico."

Not considered: "The Conference
recommends that the General Service Board
and its subsidiary boards, AA World
Services Inc and AA Grapevine Inc initiate
no litigation in defense of copyrights and
trademarks, in accordance with Tradition 10
and Warranty 5."

While the 1995 Conference did not vote to
approve lawsuits it did vote to decline to
consider them.

Gary, I've taken the time to respond to your
individual points below and that will be the
end of my participation in the exchange.
Your points are denoted with "(GB)" and my
response to them with "(AS)."

------------------------------------------------
(GB): I don't know where to begin, Arthur.
Calling the members of the man's Home
Group 'accomplices' seems a bit
inflammatory. They are fellow members,
joined in a 12th Step activity. The mail order
business was not engaged in the Big Book
give aways. You can refer to the findings
from the German Court in dismissing the
first complaint, the criminal charge.

(AS): The trustees' 2004 Conference report
states that the involvement of the mail order
business was a documented fact in the
distribution of the book in Russia through
catalogs that the business mailed to Russian
groups.

AABBSG assisted and financially supported
the German member's efforts. His actions
were found to be illegal by a German court
of law and its verdict was sustained on
appeal. An accomplice is someone who helps
somebody do something illegal. Labeling
their actions as being "joined in a 12th Step
activity" fails to distinguish between the
stated nobility of intentions and the de facto
illegitimacy of actions. One can carry AA's
message without breaking the law. And as
noted earlier there was no compelling reason
to publish the illegal book in the first place.

------------------------------------------------
(GB): The 'small but vocal group' you refer
to in Mexico was an entire service structure
with over 2,000 groups, with Districts,
Areas, Delegates and a Conference.

(AS): The 2004 Conference report mentions
a meeting between the German member and a
"small but vocal group" of Mexican
members. It was not a description of the size
of Section Mexico. The German member and
some "accomplices" published "El Libro
Azul" (an illegal Spanish language knock-off
of the Big Book).

------------------------------------------------
(GB): The permission (in Article Two) is
given for the Conference (not AAWS)
to grant the right to publish, and only where
a General Service Structure exists. Central
Mexicana was not a service structure but just
a GSO. From Article Two: "In countries
where a General Service Structure exists, the
United States/Canada Conference will
delegate sole right to publish our
Conference-approved Literature to the
General Service Board of that structure."

(AS): Your legalistic interpretation is
semantically and substantively incorrect.
AAWS and GSO are both part of a "service
structure" or "Conference" (re the service
Manual footnotes for the Original Permanent
Conference Charter). In 1979 the term
"Conference" was defined to consist of
"the Delegates, the Trustees, the General
Service Board, the directors of AAWS and
AA Grapevine and staff members of the
Grapevine and GSO." They are all voting
participants in the "Conference" of the US
and Canada.

Also reference the footnote for the Current
Conference Charter which states "The word
'Conference' as used in paragraph 2 of the
'Current Conference Charter' appears to be
synonymous with 'General Service
Conference' or 'General Service Structure' in
its application to national AA entities outside
of the US/Canada; and, while the 'Charter'
may provide guidance to other GSOs they
are still autonomous, and not bound by its
mandates, except where the law might
require it (e.g. copyright law)."

Each country can autonomously define its
own service structure which does not have to
be a replica of the US/Canada structure.
Section Mexico broke away from Central
Mexico who was recognized as the exclusive
"service structure" for publication licensing.
AAWS legitimately acted in its long-
standing, and well-established, role of
managing copyrights, reprint permissions
and publication licenses for Conference-
approved literature. Central Mexico qualified
as a licensee and a General Service structure.
------------------------------------------------

(GB): Your 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge'
comment concerning profit is definitely not
researched. Before the civil case there was a
criminal case where the German Court found
that there was indeed no profiting going on.

[reference to] http://gsowatch.aamo.info/ger/g8.gif.

In fact, the books have a disclaimer on them
that states that they are free and should not
be bought or sold. Further, the financial
report you are not aware of was given to the
German court, which is part of the reason
they dismissed the criminal charges. There is
no evidence what-so-ever that there was
anything but an altruistic motive in this case.
As is a tradition in this country, guilt must be
proved, not innocence.

(AS): My comment was "Perhaps the
acceptance of so-called '7th Traditions

contributions' still means that the books were
given away free (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
but I'll take that with a bit of skepticism."
The word "profit" was not mentioned. The
outside cover of the illegal publication states
that it is for free and its inside cover states
that AABBSG will accept "7th Tradition
donations." That's what I was commenting
on. I made no mention of criminal charges. In
terms of the German court, it might be far
more instructive to dwell on what they did do
rather than on what they didn't do. The
German member's guilt was proven in that
court and upheld on appeal.
------------------------------------------------

(GB): You mentioned that the German
member did not respond to the offer to forego
reimbursement, etc. What you didn't mention
was that there were many stipulations for
that to take effect, not just the one you
mentioned. One of the other stipulations was
to reveal the names of all members of the
AABBSG (his Home Group), breaking the
anonymity of all at a public level. Of course
he refused, and started paying.

I would like to remind everyone that all the
Big Books that were printed in Germany and
Mexico were from the First or Second
Editions, which are both in the Public
Domain.

(AS): The Steps, Traditions and Concepts
are not conveniences to take refuge behind to
avoid the consequences of breaking the law.
According to the German member, the
translators had it wrong, two Boards had it
wrong, AAWS had it wrong and several
GSOs had it wrong but he had it right. I'd
suggest that the numbers do not work
convincingly in his favor.

As mentioned earlier, the Big Book copyright
has lapsed only in the US. It is still valid
outside the US by international treaty
agreements. It is not in the public domain of
the signatory countries nor is anyone legally
permitted to print the book in the US and
ship it overseas to a signatory country. As
difficult as may be for some to acknowledge,
AA members are obligated to comply with
law the same as everyone else on this planet
otherwise consequences ensue that are not
waived based on AA membership.
------------------------------------------------

(GB): I suspect that is enough for now. I
would like to suggest that anyone even
slightly concerned about these issues read
Concept XII, Warranty 5. In my Service
Manual, it suggests that we not sue anyone,
at any time, for any reason. Further, it says,
"Some deviators have suffered rather severe
personal criticism from individual AA
members, and this is to be deplored." This
was written by Bill W. Every piece of
evidence points that this man and his group
were carrying the AA message as best they
could. While one may disagree with their
methods, the hateful attacks seem
inappropriate. Please reread Warranty 5.

(AS): As stated earlier the Concepts are not
laws or commandments and matters change
over time (not to everyone's satisfaction).
Your "Some deviators" citation would be
more instructive by including the sentences
that follow it:

"Some deviators have suffered rather severe
personal criticism from individual A.A.
members, and this is to be deplored.
However this is no reason for us to stop
reminding all concerned of the undesirability
of breaking A.A.'s Traditions before the
entire public. It can be said in all fairness
that the difficulties of those who contravene
the Traditions are chiefly troubles of their
own making."

I'd suggest that the German member's
troubles were of his own making and that the
evidence demonstrated that he was breaking
the law. He certainly had a role in fomenting
public controversy in several countries and
doing harm to AA as a whole with rather
inflammatory content and commentary over
the internet. Claims of "carrying AA's
message as best they could" seem to fall
more into the category of "alibi" rather than
exoneration.

The AA service entities that brought the
lawsuit have also had their staff members
subjected to broad-brush severe personal
criticism whether or not the staff member had
any role at all in the lawsuit. Claiming that
they engaged in "hateful attacks" is neither
demonstrated nor warranted. It falls into the
same hyperbole of claiming that the German
translators were motivated by "anti-spiritual
resentments." It's far more a product of
negative imagination rather than objective
investigation. The critics of the German law
suit seem to have little tolerance and much
scorn of an opposing viewpoint.

AA's message can be carried without
breaking the law. It's that simple.

Finally, the only hateful attacks I've
witnessed (and there is audit trail archive of
it going back for years) have emanated from
the web site you use as a reference.

You are part of that group. Over the past
several years:

Has that group done any harm to AA as a
whole by continually claiming that the AA
service entities that brought the lawsuit did
so as a hateful attack rather than on the
reasons they explained to the General Service
Conferences?

Has that group done any harm to AA as a
whole where, to this day, just about any
action of the part of those service entities is
still subject to international public ridicule
and condemnation (over the world-wide
internet)?

Has that group engaged in public controversy
by inciting AA members and groups to take
the punitive action of withholding donations
to GSO based on a single issue and despite
all the other good service works done by
GSO?

Has that group done harm to AA as a whole
in its pillory of Bill W's authorship role in the
Big Book or in its public broadcast of the
embarrassment concerning his named
beneficiaries in his last will and testament?

Is there one set of Traditions and Concepts
that apply to the Board, AAWS and GSO
but a different set that apply to AA members
using the internet (an international public
forum) often to the extreme of engaging in
slander and revisionist history?

Arthur