Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00505)

Daniel,
As far as Historical Inquiry, Historical Scholarship and Critical 
Intellect you
address, when I posted a serious question that I considered of major
significance and substance I was accused of attempting to distract 
and 
alter the inquiry direction. I responded on the following basis and 
reasons:

There first had to have been existing Statute of the United States 
that acted 
to mediate actions of individuals or groups in regard to Patented 
and Copyright
Literary Property. I asked what was the existing Convention under 
existing
American Law for the period 1860 through 1900. This is fundamental 
if there be
any basis for the charges of Plagerization. Now as I am not 
knowledgeable, it 
seemed natural to ask the scholars who so regularly make the charge 
here on
this Forum. After all who has more reason to be certain their charges 
conform and 
represent tangible injury of substance and legally able to withstand 
court Test 
but a Scholar? Surely the Law and it's prerequisites must be inherent 
to any
work of Scholarship in charges of these kind. 

I asked who and how many Publishers or Authors who hold Copyright and 
Patent
to the long list of imputations listed (they cited one Author they say 
lists over 1200)
if that be so I asked why then cannot you cite chapter and verse on 
Court Record
of recovery and redress or cease and desist or actual damage awarded. 
surely 
any Scholar worth their salt can support their position with actual 
Case History
of actions taken against H.P.B. or Theosophy during those years.

I have yet seen no court evidence of suits although I am fairly 
certain that New
York's Judiciary has ample proof if it existed.

Either there was real tangible injury under the Law or there was not.
Either Authors and Publishers took H.P.B. or Theosophy to Court or they 
did not.
Either they Prosecuted successfully or they did not.
Either they received satisfaction or they did not.
Either there is Case Law and Court record or there is not.
Either there was Statute of the USA or New York that punished 
Plagarization, 
non-crediting of works, authors, between 1860 and 1900 or there was not.
Either H.P.B. would have been subject to the Law or she was not because 
no Law
specifically governing her particular actions existed.
Did H.P.B. have Legal Counsel that advised of legal consequence 
relative to contents in her works or did she not?
Did Theosophy as a Duly and Lawfully registered Organization operating 
in the
State of New York and the USA reflect advise and knowledge pertaining 
to the
offending acts she and it are accused of?

I believe these are revelant "Inquiries" and basic to the charges 
made and the 
truth about them. None but a True Scholar can inform us, so we wait, 
patiently.


John