This page is the response of Derek Robert to the assertion that his book 'Christian Set Yourself Free From Freemasonry' is copied from the books of others, without permission.

The short answer: This book is not copied or plagiarised from any other and as such no permission is needed.

The long answer: I have taken the implication of the rumour/gossip to be malicious and to mean I have supposedly plagiarised certain books. This I refute. To those who feel concerned about the accusation of plagiarism I can only ask them to show me the instances of this in my book. If anyone cares to place my books side by side with that of any other on the same subject they will see that whilst dealing with the same subject with its rites and blood oaths, there is a very different style of presentation as well as style of writing in my books to any other. There is also much concerning the Masonic and other Orders in my book that are not covered by the many other very informative books on Masonry. It is in actuality a completely different book to any other available! So different that if the allegation were not so serious it would be laughable.

My extensive research for 'Christian Set Yourself Free From Freemasonry' is from a significant variety of material and these are listed in the Bibliography as anyone can see.

Copyright:

Take the blood oaths of the first, second and third and any other degree for that matter: Nobody can copyright these as they are already in the public domain. Further it is not possible to copyright what are deemed to be historical facts as was clarified in the UK High Court when author Dan Brown, because of his book 'The Da Vinci Code,' was sued by the Masonic authors of the arguably pseudo historical book: 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail.' The link to CNN's article on this is:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/07/uk.davinci.court/index.html

From 'The Week' Friday 10th March 2006

In theory English copyright does not protect ideas, just their expression: only if the text of another's work is lifted, or the flow of their argument substantially reproduced, is it plagiarism. Re the Da Vinci Code, the judge will have to ask an interesting question %uFFFDwhat are legal limits to drawing inspiration%uFFFD

Richard Alleyne in the Daily Telegraph says: The complaint is, essentially, that Brown used the book, 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' for historical research - %uFFFDin the same way that Shakespeare used Holinshed's Chronicles or Plutarch%uFFFD. No one owns facts!

Masonry and Copyright:

Freemasonry and its many blood oaths and secrets are in the public domain and even Grand Lodge is no longer able to claim copyright on these. Further my research has included personal interviews and discussions with a number of ex high level masons, ex-members Orange/Purple Order, ex-Mormon (Temple Member), several ex Knights Templars as well as practicing masons including one of the 32nd Degree.

Absurdities:

One specific lady author as well as an acclaimed ex 19th degree Mason have, according to gossip, both claimed I have plagiarised their books. In the case of the latter a book that was still to be published when I first published mine. So now we have at least two separate Christian ministers apparently claiming the Masonic content of my book is their work. Surely an impossibility as well as an absurdity. Specific but limited quotes from a book such as my quotation of Albert Pike, (Masonic) or William Still (non Masonic) are noted and as such are not subject to the need for permission.

One of these two self publishers did raise the issue of acknowledgement in an email and I quote: 'We found in it no acknowledgement of our publication, except in the Bibliography, though it was clearly a major source.' In my reply in 2001 I pointed out that the acknowledgement was in the same place they use: The Bibliography. I have since received nothing addressing the matter of copying or plagiarism, no doubt for the simple reason it is not true. I fully addressed the issues raised and with no response to my letter or subsequent email, that was the end of the matter.

I can only consider the publisher has taken legal advice and with no case to answer, have contacted me no further. If there was any truth to the allegation it would be a simple matter for them to contact me, point out the alleged plagiarism and ask me to explain or stop publishing. This has never happened.

Conclusion:

There should be no ethical or legitimate concerns for any Christian ministry about using my books within the limits of the copyright of those books. The only advantage Satan can take in this would be to see me stop publishing and that by God's grace will not happen.

Derek Robert