Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00328)

Poor Ms Muhlegger. Yet again she is reduced to slander and name-calling 
as an alternative to answering straightforward questions of fact. Yet she 
was so outraged by my allegations of theft of material and plagiarism 
that on November 4 she wrote to me announcing that her (unnamed) lawyers 
in Sydney were about to initiate legal action against me for making them. 
I asked for the name of the lawyers so I could contact them directly. I'm 
sure no-one will be surprised to hear that she wouldn't tell me. Perhaps 
the legal documents she claimed were being express couriered to Thailand 
for her signature so court action could immediately begin were lost on 
the way? Likewise, I still awaiting the threatened visit from the Police 
(though, unless the Police as as ignorant of Australian law as Ms 
Muhlegger or her "Sydney lawyers", I'm not sure why they'd be 
interested). I'm happy to go on repeating the statements that Ms 
Muhlegger is a thief because she stole Dr French's material, and a 
plagiarizer because she stole more of it and published it without 
acknowledgement in articles for which she claimed authorship. 
Should this matter be on this discussion site? Of course. If someone 
participating claims scholarly credentials, such credentials ought to be 
tested. I would expect the same standards to apply to me: if I, in books 
or my thesis, have stolen material or plagiarized, please - someone! - 
denounce me. 
If Ms Muhlegger is not a thief and a plagiarizer, let her demonstrate the 
fact by straightforward answers to these questions:
1. Did she have Dr French's permission to publish material from her 
thesis on her previous web site? if so, how was that permission obtained?
2. When Dr French stated that she did not have permission do publish, why 
did she not remove the material? Particularly given her statement in her 
e-mails to Dr French and me of November 4 in which she declared: "But I 
want to assure you I will take everything off, you don't have to worry 
yourself about that."
3. Did she subsequently pass the material, having been informed that she 
did not have permission to publish, to the "new" website?
4. Did she incorporate large sections of Dr French's material verbatim, 
but without any acknowledgements, in articles for which she claims 
authorship? does she deny that she has plagiarized this material?
5. Does she consider that the theft of other people's material, whether 
by publishing it without permission or plagiarizing it, is acceptable 
behaviour?
It's worth noting that not in a single posting on this site, nor in any 
of her many e-mails to me or Dr French, has Ms Muhlegger ever explicitly 
stated that (i) she had permission to publish the material, or (ii) she 
had not plagiarized material. Most people, accused of something of which 
they were innocent, would immediately deny the allegations and provide 
evidence/explanation. Those who respond by attacking their accusers or 
changing the subject are usually those who are guilty.
Ms Muhlegger can be assured that the facts of her dishonest behaviour 
will be published in every possible forum, drawn to the attention of all 
scholars in the field of Theosophical history and published in every 
journal in the area .... over and over and over again until she 
satisfactorily deals with the matter. She should forward a copy of this 
e-mail to her Sydney lawyers immediately, and make sure they have my 
contact details! I eagerly anticipate correspondence from them. She might 
also forward to them the following statement which, by University 
regulation, appears in the front of every Australian thesis: "Under the 
Copyright Act 1968 this thesis must be used only under the normal 
conditions of scholarly fair dealing for the purposes of research, 
criticism or review. In particular no results or conclusions should be 
extracted from it and it should not be copied or closely paraphrased in 
whole or in part without the written consent of the author. Proper 
written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from 
this thesis. .... Section 31(1)(a)(i) provides that the copyright 
includes the exclusive right to 'reproduce the work in a material form'. 
Thus copyright is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the 
copyright and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, 
reproduces or authorizes the reproduction of a work, or a substantial 
part of the work, in a material form, unless the reproduction is a 'fair 
dealing' with the work 'for the purpose of research or private study'.

Dr Gregory Tillett