1. On September 22nd, 1987, Mary Baker Eddy's "little book," Science and Health with Key to the
Scriptures, emerged from under its unconstitutional copyright -- Private Law 92-60 -- an attempt by the Board of Directors of the Christian Science Church in Boston to copyright all 431 editions of the textbook to remove them from the public domain, since Mrs. Eddy copyrighted Science and Health for the last time in 1906.

2. The authentic 1910 edition by Aequus Institute gives the date of its first one hundred-year anniversary edition in 1975 and the prior copyright dates of 1890, 1894, 1901, 1902, 1906.

3. After her last copyright in 1906, Mrs. Eddy made many significant changes that had no copyright restrictions on them at all.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1971 COPYRIGHT ACT

4. Prior to 1906, Mrs. Eddy had always copyrighted each edition in which any extensive changes were made, regardless of the date of her last copyright.

5. She copyrighted Science and Health in 1875, 1878, 1883, 1885, 1890, 1894, 1901, 1902, 1906, so why did she not copyright the extensive changes made after the second edition in 1907 since she tells us that "spiritual ideas unfold as we advance" -- and after her second edition in 1907 many changes of great import culminated in the textbook's scientific statement and proof.

6. The finished and final revelation of Christian Science was not set forth in the 1906 edition. Fourteen more editions were required to bring out the final revelation.

7. Mrs. Eddy speaks of her first edition dated 1875 as having been revised only to give a clearer and fuller expression to its original meaning. But it took the unfoldment of all 432 editions to make the pure Science of Christian Science clear to humanity in such a form and manner that would enable it to be taught as are music and mathematics now taught. A vital part of this discovery came after 1907.

8. A science does not, cannot be copyrighted. And Mrs. Eddy wrote that "Christian Science is not copyrighted."

9. Since Mrs. Eddy made no arrangements to copyright the major developments that came in the last fourteen editions after 1907, it is evident that she wanted Science and Health to be in the public domain at the earliest possible time.

10. According to the Appendix of Helen Wright's book, America Cradle for the Second Coming of the Christ, United Christian Scientists, Inc. challenged The Christian Science Board of Directors of The Mother Church on the constitutionality of the copyright of Science and Health which the board had obtained.

11. This case, No.85-5959, Civil Action No. 83-03486, was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 28, 1986, and was decided on September 22, 1987 when Chief Judge WALD ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, UCS, Inc., as follows.

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, by this Court, that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed, in accordance with the Opinion for the Court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam For The Court
George A. Fisher clerk
Date: September 22, 1987
_______________________________________________________

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROBINSON, Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is the constitutional validity of Private Law 92-60, which grants appellant, Christian Science Board of Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist (First Church), an extended copyright on all editions of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Science and Health), the central theological text of the Christian Science faith. Appellees, United Christian Scientists and David James Nolan and Lucile J. Place, two officers of a dissenting group of Christian Scientists, challenge Private Law 92-60, on grounds that it violates the Copyright Clause of the Constitution and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment thereof. Finding that both the purpose and the effect of Private Law 92-60 were to aid religion, the District Court held that it contravenes the Establishment Clause. We conclude that Private Law 92-60 offends fundamental principles of separation of church and state, and accordingly affirm.... (last two pages as regards special copyright law, Private Law 92-60 rendered in 1971) ....therefore, First Church has acquired full dominion over public access to Science and Health. Congress has bestowed upon the Church not only a symbolic recognition as guardian of the text, but also significant practical advantages in that role. In conferring these benefits, Private Law 92-60 has the unmistakable effect of advancing the Church's cause. The Establishment Clause precedent amply indicts governmental involvement in sectarian affairs of this sort. As the Supreme Court has taught, an important concern of the effects test is whether the symbolic union of church and state effected by the challenged governmental action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denomination as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices. In the case at bar, the impermissible message of sectarian endorsement and the correlative message of sectarian disapproval are not merely possibilities, but accomplished and formally attested facts. The judgment appealed from in this case (freeing the textbook Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures from ecclesiastical control) is accordingly Affirmed..