March 2013 / Søren Ingemann Larsen
As most visitors of this page know, the Martinus Institute has now taken legal actions to prevent access to Martinus’ work here at martinus-webcenter.dk. These judicial actions also aim at stopping the sale of Martinus ‘original literature in the form of the original reissues of Martinus’ work (so-called facsimile editions), published by Kurt Christiansen, and conveyed by Ruth Olsen. Download the letter from the council attorney dated March 11, 2013 to Søren Ingemann Larsen, almost identical letters have been sent to the others just mentioned)
All the above-mentioned activities that the Martinus Institute wishes to hit is solely conditional upon the Martinus Institute itself not wishing or able to fulfill these tasks – despite the fact that these tasks are in 100% harmony with Martinus’ wishes and instructions.
What The Martinus Institute instead do is in stark contradiction with Martinus’ wishes and instructions. – Martinus has clearly stated in a number of documentable statements, including what is expressed in the Law of the Martinus Institute itself, that there should be no change in the work he left behind. And yet, the Martinus Institute introduces changes to the original work, and at the same time pulls the people to court who, in response to this and in respect of Martinus’s directions, publishes the original work without these corrections.
We are therefore in the grotesque situation that the Council of the Martinus Institute now, by means of legal actions – the means of the ancient world impulse – will prevent the free access to and dissemination of Martinus’s work in its original form and the only logical purpose for this is that the council wishes to protect its profit and control power through the legal copyright they believe they have in relation to Martinus’ work. If the Martinus Institute actually has this right, is highly doubtful because they do not act according to Martinus’ unambiguous instructions and guidelines.
One of these instructions is that the Council may not use legal proceedings to protect the copyright of the work. This protection, instead, according to Martinus, consisted of “doing the right thing”. And if the Martinus Institute itself had
– posted all material for free download on their website
– published Martinus’ original and unchanged work of the highest quality at the manufacturing price
they would have avoided this embarrassing case. Why would others then do that ??
If you want to speak of “lawful” and “illegal” in this case, it is advisable to commit something illegal by acting contrary to the will of Martinus. Martinus’ testaments §3 reads:
“It is my duty of my universal survivor and my estate agents to respect the records I leave for my funeral, the fulfillment of the Foundation’s purpose, the administration of the Institute, including the use of my apartment and villa” Rosenberg “in Klint, and regarding any remembrance.”
As long as the council does not act according to Martinus’ laws, records and documentable statements, it does not respect the will of Martinus, thus committing something illegal, and that is precisely what we respond to by acting as we do.
This will leave the council as if it should not worry. It tries to make it as if the Council knows the so-called Gift Certificate(with Martinus transferring the copyright to the Martinus Institute) has complete freedom to do with Martinus’ work as they like. But the legal and moral reality is that the gift certificate is limited by means of the will and the testament, as stated above, the council is required to act in accordance with Martinus’ records, which include rich councils that Martinus made sure was taken up on tape. In addition, Martinus refers in his last public lecture to this testament and denotes it as “The Guard of the Case,” for example, see this at 5:30 pm. “This testament will therefore be a key element in the trial which the Council now proposes. Here, the entire council and former councilors will be able to account for whether they acted in accordance with the testament of Martinus, which they are not.
Can it be “more illegal” to infringe a copyright than to administer this copyright in violation of the writers’ statutory testament?
Does the Council really think that in the long run, it could survive by trying to “protect” and “legitimize” its own “illegalities” with the powers of the old world impulse, to prosecute people who, in response to these irregularities on their own initiative and by their own money has made Martinus’ original and unchanged work available – in full accordance with the testimony of Martinus? – And does the Council believe that these alleged “offenders” will cease protecting Martinus’ work and testamentary will simply because the Council is threatening a “lawsuit”? “In that case, we would not be much better than the Council itself. The Council fails to manifestly and documentably act illegally in relation to the will of Martinus, and we would fail by not responding to this illegality.
The above should be logical for most people who have worked a little on Martinus’ spiritual science, or for the council.
How this case goes on, we’ll see. So far, many people have written letters to the Martinus Institute, and many of these people have done this in the form of open letters.
These open letters will be displayed here. (Come back, since under preparation)
November 2013 : The four people who The Martinus Institute with supporters money brought legal proceedings against for doing Martinus’ genuine and unaltered work easily accessible to any interested person. This means that the cost of defending our deeds must be dealt with by our own personal finances.
If you wish to assist us financially in this cause, contributions are welcome, they can be paid to the following account, reg.no. 1551 Account 4020224533 (contact Jan Langekær, Jan@langekaer.dk, +45 2015 7811).
In advance thank you.
/ Søren Ingemann Larsen