How to Access Dr. Scott's works at the Library of Congress

343 views
Skip to first unread message

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Jan 30, 2021, 3:45:20 PMJan 30
to
Detailed description of the process.

There is not a damn thing she can do to keep anyone from doing this.

She has effectively boxed herself in by all of these legal fights. If she had not sued Patrick and his "Confederates" (as their lawyer likes to call them), she probably would have never done the copyright deposits. Without those deposits, these works would be unavailable. Now that they are there, she cannot withdraw them without terminating copyright protection.

This access is within the law and those who go there must abide by copyright law (a certain prickly plant was and is wrong about claims that any violation of copyright has ever been advocated by the GSLP project). Beyond that, it is open season.

If there are works that people on the outside have that are not in the collection, they too can be deposited. She cannot even edit them without losing copyright protection.

Have fun!

https://paulineinstitute.wordpress.com/2021/01/30/accessing-the-gene-scott-legacy-at-the-library-of-congress/

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Jan 30, 2021, 4:12:15 PMJan 30
to
Message has been deleted

No One Special

unread,
Feb 19, 2021, 11:23:39 PMFeb 19
to
What can we say?...Melissa LOST, we won. Loving it! Thank you Jesus!!

sorry, Melissa, you just can't win against God. You will NEVER stop Doc's teachings from be available to all who wants to hear them. NEVER.
Message has been deleted

rpbc

unread,
Feb 20, 2021, 3:21:59 PMFeb 20
to
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:23:39 PM UTC-7, No One Special wrote:
> What can we say?...Melissa LOST, we won. Loving it! Thank you Jesus!!
>
> sorry, Melissa, you just can't win against God. You will NEVER stop Doc's teachings from be available to all who wants to hear them. NEVER.
rpbc: NOS... so tell us please... what happened! What did Melissa lose and what did you all win? And how does it make Doc's teachings available to all who want to hear them? Are you talking free to play?

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Feb 20, 2021, 9:09:59 PMFeb 20
to
IF you go to Washington
IF you get a Library of Congress Library card (easy to do)
Make an appointment beforehand, telling them exactly the files that you want.
Go there and watch/listen.
Oh, by the way, with COVID, the LoC reading room is closed right now.

But

It is a crack in the door.

Papillon

unread,
Feb 20, 2021, 9:28:18 PMFeb 20
to
Dr. Gene Scott would be very happy and very proud that his works were accessible in this fashion. Good stuff, Dennis. For good or bad, let another generation judge his words separate from his deeds and see if God chooses to use him again.

If he were alive now to react, Doc would probably spend a couple of festivals talking about the Library of Congress, Jefferson's Library, Jefferson, and ultimately how Jefferson's grape vine roots saved the global wine crop - while showing video footage his new wine cellar, of course.

No One Special

unread,
Feb 20, 2021, 10:03:41 PMFeb 20
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 12:21:59 PM UTC-8, rpbc wrot
Melissa's goal was to keep the vast majority of Doc's teachings from the public. With the Library of Congress now accepting Doc's teachings available to the public (with more of Doc's teachings to be given the Library), Melissa's plan to solely control Doc's teaching and keep them from people has absolutely failed. She has lost her battle after blowing millions of dollars in an extremely pathetic wasteful fool's venture. As Wingo noted: "there is not one damn thing she can do about it." She lost, we won...more important GOD WON.
Message has been deleted

bluettes

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 2:45:14 PMFeb 23
to
Speaking for myself ... a dubious "victory" but glad JezeMel didn't get her way. Good for you guys!!

rpbc

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 3:50:05 PMFeb 23
to
Blue: Speaking for myself ... a dubious "victory" but glad JezeMel didn't get her way. Good for you guys!!
rpbc: Me too...
Message has been deleted

bluettes

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 1:53:45 PMFeb 24
to
I support Free Speech! Let GS's recordings be free to play for everyone who wants them!

rpbc

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 3:41:29 PMFeb 24
to
Blu: I support Free Speech! Let GS's recordings be free to play for everyone who wants them!
rpbc: Jezemel.. good one blu. I couldn't agree more, free to play for anyone and everyone who wants them. Don't know how that comes under free speech but it is what Scott wanted... which I bet is stated in the will.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 12:40:35 PMFeb 25
to
I will be going to DC sometime in the fairly near future to look at some of the files and then we will see what is up with them. Any files that are edited that are deposited for copyright can be retroactively rejected for copyright. The law is quite clear that the entire broadcast is necessary for copyright protection, not edited versions.

There is a clear and easily discernible difference between legitimate gaps in a recording, such as might be the case of a bad tape, and a deliberate edit. The former is what the section 202.20(d) waiver allows for, the latter is not.

An interesting non copyrighted artifact illustrates this. The link below is the president Eisenhower's first inaugural address in 1953. The video is broken up, presumably because some of it has been lost. The gaps are covered by an audio recording of the same event. This is allowed. For copyrighted works, this is also allowed, but deliberate edits are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwenOlpbvTA
Message has been deleted

rpbc

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 4:30:18 PMFeb 25
to
rpbc: "...Any files that are edited that are deposited for copyright can be retroactively rejected for copyright. The law is quite clear that the entire broadcast is necessary for copyright protection, not edited versions..." Would you elaborate on this... is this in regard to the library of congress or general copyright protection?
Message has been deleted

bluettes

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 6:52:21 PMFeb 25
to
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:40:35 AM UTC-7, wingo...@gmail.com wrote:
1st Amendment wins again ...it feels so good.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 2:32:53 PMFeb 27
to
rpbc

Do a search regarding copyright law and Section 202.20(d) exemptions.... There is a lot of stuff there.

To obtain a copyright, the entire broadcast must be provided to the copyright office. If for example, as we all know, edited versions were done, for many reasons. You can get a section 202.20(d) exemption if the entire original work does not exist anymore, and considering the state of some of the original 2" tapes, that is not unheard of. However, for most of the history of the ministry Dr. Scott required a 3/4" backup done, as well as an audio tape backup. Thus, like Eisenhower's inaugural address that I reference in my blog, you can piece back together the entire broadcast.

This due diligence is required by the copyright office. Broadcasts that are intentionally edited and submitted may have their copyright protection retroactively denied. I tried to tell Patrick Robinson's lawyers this but they were idiots.

A very dear friend is a senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and there are all kinds of things that can be done to challenge the copyright (including a 3rd party providing the missing segments of a broadcast) or to help complete it.

I am not opposed in principle to the copyright being maintained, but since it has been used as a weapon to ruin the lives of people who wanted no more than to do what Dr. Scott wanted done, which is sharing the teaching, this is one of the options that we have after we start a review of the materials that are there.

She has painted herself into a corner on this one. If she pulls the materials provided for copyright, she loses copyright protection and also provides a means for those harmed by her lawsuits to sue her for malicious prosecution. If it is found that the submitted works are simply incomplete, then, through the Kings House community we can probably find tapes that bridge the gaps. Additionally, (and I have no knowledge one way or another at this time), if only intentionally edited (the 1491 Section 202.20(d) waivers out of 3626 broadcasts submitted to this date) were provided, my friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation might have something to say about that through the existing processes at the Copyright office.

I would additionally note that no copyright deposits have happened since July of 2020, near the time that Patrick had to default on his challenges...

That may possibly denote intent to withhold broadcasts from copyright. If that is the case, then through the Kings House community, those missing broadcasts can be submitted to the Copyright office for copyright protection in the name of the copyright owners. This does not help free the broadcasts for the community, but it does help provide a complete record for that inevitable time when Melissa passes from the scene.....

Interesting ain't it.

rpbc

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 3:17:42 PMFeb 27
to
rpbc: Yes... interesting. So, taking a direct read from the must be complete to copyright one might assume they are for the most part free to play... problem being establishing that in court, getting a ruling. I can imagine everyone's frustration with Patrick's lawyers when this was put before them, it might have ended right there. I had my own frustrations for other reasons, not the least being not presenting the whole unredacted... who redacts a will and for what reason... the whole unredacted will... but, maybe that's just me. At any rate this is interesting... entertaining as much as interesting. Thanks for answering my question, minus a full reading of the will you are on a good tact. Good on ya Mr. Wingo... and, would like to see those lawsuits roll back on Melissa as malicious prosecution, which they are... And, as somewhat aside, for those believing Scott to be the prophetic teacher of end times, waiting for Melissa to pass from the scene is not an option, indeed, she is advancing the efforts of the beast outlined in Revelation, certainly not holding it back. Scott was at his best with Daniel/Revelation, at his best right there...maybe following the Resurrection, but right there.... and one can't post it... there are some others good with it but Scott's teaching on that should be out there.
Message has been deleted

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 1:25:58 AMFeb 28
to
rpbc

This does not need a court. The copyright office is an administrative agency and if you don't follow their rules, there is no appeal. The law is quite clear in this regard. I have no idea at this time what the deal is with the 1491 entries that were granted the section 202.20(d) waivers. I will take a sampling of them as well as the ones that were not granted waivers. I will also enter into the system at least one broadcast that has not been copyrighted to test the system. It will help the ministry as they are the one ones that can benefit. However, where it gets interesting is if they try and fight it administratively. There are thousands of his broadcasts (a total of ~46%) of all of his broadcasts that do not have a copyright deposit.

She made a big deal a few years ago showing all the DVD's from the 2" tape transfer. She said that she was protecting his legacy. However, with 46% of all of his works without a copyright deposit submitted, this would appear to be false.

This has nothing to do with the courts, bottom line. I don't know if there will ever be any recompense for those hounded into bankruptcy, but one thing for sure, that if all the t's are not crossed, and all the i's dotted, it will be found out and dealt with.

rpbc

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 3:40:04 PMFeb 28
to
rpbc: By courts I meant for anyone who might post his material sharing with others, what she has already done with her suits.... nothing to do with the LOC or actual copy write law... I'm talking the need, and expense, to respond to her legal attacks, suits... and the need to bring copy write law as it applies to broadcasts to bear with a decision. Seems one has to prove they are right in this and from there a precedent would be set with Scott's material for those who wish to share it... that's what I meant by courts. Honestly... end game... free to play is the only way for Scott's material to be out there for all to share, sharing was his often stated position, what he wanted.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 11:57:31 PMFeb 28
to
rpbc

There are other ways to achieve the end of release to the world of the corpus of his teaching that do not involve the courts. There is nothing that I am doing here that can result in a lawsuit as everything is done strictly through the auspices of the Library of Congress and through their lawful process. These things have to proceed in a legal, lawful manner, and things will work out one way or another.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

rpbc

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 2:05:09 PMMar 1
to
Wingo: " > There are other ways to achieve the end of release to the world of the corpus of his teaching that do not involve the courts. There is nothing that I am doing here that can result in a lawsuit as everything is done strictly through the auspices of the Library of Congress and through their lawful process. These things have to proceed in a legal, lawful manner, and things will work out one way or another."

rpbc: I am not even suggesting that what you are doing could result in a lawsuit. I am only saying that sharing on line Scott's messages can result in a lawsuit, and has resulted in a lawsuit(s) over copy right issues. LOC filings will not stop those, requires a court ruling. It is the expense to defend against her suit that is the inhibiting factor, a tactic used by Scott and others who consider themselves having deep pockets... and often a ruling is not desired by the plaintiff, Scott or Melissa, just to run the opposition out of money. One of the other ways to achieve release of Scott's material to the world might be in the will... with a sideline interest I am amazed that no one has brought forth the whole will, it is redacted, areas blacked out that easily could lay this all to rest yet no one engaging Melissa over the right to share the material has taken the time to look at the whole of the will. For anybody having an active interest in making Scott's material free to play not securing a full read of the will is beyond any sense of the believable to me yet here we are... unbelievable. Melissa has redacted... hid portions of it... and nobody explores it... redactions are there for a reason and are not arbitrary... I feel the same frustration as you with Patrick's lawyers... secure a copy of and read the damned will... she has a reason for hiding certain sections of it and owing to how important and outlandish her lawsuits are it would seem natural to assume the redactions have something to do with this copyright stuff... especially since everybody knows his desire was to have his messages going out to the world in his voice till Jesus comes, encouraged others to share them... and she has turned everything he did on it's head except the 'giving', the very thing that led him to run his train into the ditch.

Good work with the LOC though... but why not read the will, at least wonder about the why of her hiding certain sections of it, redacting. Perhaps you think hiding key elements, like copyright/ownership of broadcast material, are beneath her... remnants of thoughts about
Scott. One thing is for sure, from all appearances, nothing is beneath her. Read the will....
Message has been deleted

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 2:15:27 PMMar 2
to
The parts that are redacted go to the matter of the corporations. I get what you are saying but that is step 41 in the process.

Looks like our prickly one is crowing about a victory. Now that is very interesting and there is a corporate aspect to that ruling that if Patrick's lawyers had a brain, they could have had that redacted part made part of the court record.

God is watching....

rpbc

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 3:03:16 PMMar 2
to
Wingo: > The parts that are redacted go to the matter of the corporations. I get what you are saying but that is step 41 in the process.
>
> Looks like our prickly one is crowing about a victory. Now that is very interesting and there is a corporate aspect to that ruling that if Patrick's lawyers had a brain, they could have had that redacted part made part of the court record.
>
> God is watching....
rpbc: Step 41... at least it's in line. That the redacted part goes to the matter of the corporations would make it of prime interest one would think, since Scott structured his operation as a corporation. And how do you know the redactions of the will go to the matter of the corporations without reading them? I'm not trying to be challenging but that seems a fair question. I mean... the will is redacted, portions are hidden... going towards the corporations or not why would they be hidden, for what purpose. If they are towards the matter of the corporations that would make them of more interest since Scott structured his operation as a corporation...concerning his broadcast material and desire to have it available to the world till Jesus comes, either Scott knew what he was doing with his will or he didn't. I think he knew what he was doing with the will but underestimated or failed to recognize the treachery he had embraced with designating Melissa as the equivalent as a trustee. I bet you it's right there in the will.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 12:54:51 AMMar 3
to
Because that is the title of the section.

rpbc

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 1:55:30 AMMar 3
to
Wingo: "Because that is the title of the section."

rpbc: That's no reason not to read them... the whole thing is a corporation and what ever is redacted under matters of corporation, what ever it is titled, are directives... directives. You don't know what they say or issue is addressed unless you read them, the redacted parts, the will in it's entirety. Scott knew what he was doing with his will and would have made one thing clear, keep my messages going to the world till Jesus comes... but he was an extremely bad judge of character when his ego was involved, as it usually was, and he gifted you Melissa. I bet the key to all of this is in the redacted portion of the will... redacted, hidden, secretive... why would someone redact a will... to hide something... consider that against what she is hiding of Scott's, his messages...there is an inversion there. I bet it's right there in the will.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 9:15:33 AMMar 3
to
Remember "Research Guy"? He pretty much identified the corporations and their assets. I have followed up on his work and have my own information here.

All at the right time my friend.

rpbc

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 3:14:46 PMMar 3
to
Wingo: Remember "Research Guy"? He pretty much identified the corporations and their assets. I have followed up on his work and have my own information here.
>
> All at the right time my friend.
rpbc: The fact is the will is redacted and redactions are done for a reason, which is to hide something... what is most important to her, the distribution/availability of Scott's messages... what in the will would be important for her to hide... words dealing with the distribution/availability of his messages. This is so obvious and so easy to investigate, as in read the whole of the will. The LOC is good but does not provide for popular distribution of his messages... my voice going to the world till Jesus comes... which was his often stated desire demonstrated by encouraging sharing of recorded medium and downloadable play list on his website. His operation was a corporation and that would include as assets the broadcasts and how they were to be handled. I understand what I consider to be convoluted explanations of why the will is not of prime importance but am amazed at how it is dismissed when a full reading of his last will and testament is paramount. And I see where you do actually acknowledge Melissa as the rightful owner of the copyrights of his material, certainly regarding control of his material. I believe you handicap yourself in efforts to make it openly available operating under her assertion that it belongs to her, guides your efforts... I bet a full reading of the will put that assertion as she presents it up to intense scrutiny. Bet she's not following the will as stated concerning funds... corporate funds... to insure his messages in his voice go to the world till Jesus comes... which is what he said many times over. Actually, all said and done, you might be providing pathway for her to actually own the copyrights, insuring limited access through LOC requirements. Read the will, bet the problem of open and free access can be unraveled at the source... and who knows what else.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 3:32:35 PMMar 3
to
It is quite clear in the will that he gave to her the copyright rights that he personally held......

.......

.......

.......

That is not the full story, and if you are very good, you can figure it all out....

It is actually already out there.

rpbc

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 4:01:34 PMMar 3
to
Wingo: It is quite clear in the will that he gave to her the copyright rights that he personally held......

.......

.......

.......

That is not the full story, and if you are very good, you can figure it all out....

It is actually already out there.

rpbc: If that is the case why not put it out there, here. Why the mystery and intrigue? How do you know he gave to her the copyrights that he 'personally' held, how could you know.. concrete knowledge... any of this without reading the whole of the will? If it is already out there why not make it known, at least post it word for word as a transcription. Why all this mystery and cloak and dagger stuff... honestly, to me that is shades of how it was on the planet.. insiders and all that. Why the mystery... and that, sorry, that silly appeal to elitism, 'if you are very good you can figure it out'... so cult like, and I don't mean that as an attack on you personally, but that is what prevailed at the planet scott, the cult. Did you read the whole of the will, at the court of records or anywhere else? If yes what does it say word for word, if not you should.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 10:55:48 PMMar 3
to
Because it is time to keep them guessing.

One key is who the proceeds from the latest judgement actually get paid to...

Anyone got a copy of the order?

rpbc

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 11:23:10 PMMar 3
to
Wingo: Because it is time to keep them guessing.

One key is who the proceeds from the latest judgement actually get paid to...

Anyone got a copy of the order?

rpbc: So you haven't read the will in it's entirety.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 12:14:43 AMMar 4
to
No, but I know which is the only entity that has the legal right to receive funds from this lawsuit.

rutherford

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 10:17:42 AMMar 4
to
IS THIS TAPE COPYRIGHTED? VF-826 12-13-92-The USA in Scripture

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 12:09:03 PMMar 4
to


Copyright registration PA0002167274 Date of submission 2018-12-31 VF-826 The Book of Revelation: Foundations For Prophecy.

I have posted links to this on my blog and here to find this information out for yourselves.

Dennis Ray Wingo

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 12:48:11 PMMar 4
to
Here are some that are not registered..

VF-691 Giving: God Positions Our Giving With Christ's Atoning Gift 1 Cor. 15, 16 05/20/1990 GGW2 Yes 1 :55 X X
VF-692 The Book of Galatians: Paul's Message of Grace & Peace, vs. James & the Perverts Gal. 1:1-9 05/27/1990 Yes 1 1:13 X X
VF-693 The Book of Galatians: Faith, A Righteousness That Is Dynamite vs. the Law's Impossible Standard Gal. 1; Rom. 7, 8 06/03/1990 Yes 1 1:05 X X
VF-694 The Book of Galatians: Setting the Perverts Straight with the Gospel (Paul's Ministry) Gal. 1:1-10 & 2:1-5 06/10/1990 Yes 1 1:10 X X
VF-695 The Book of Galatians: No Compromise with the Gospel, the Dynamite That Saves Gal. 1:3-8 & 2:1-14; Rom. 1:15, 16 06/17/1990 Yes 1 1:02 X X
VF-696 The Book of Galatians: No One Can Be Justified By Works Gal. 2:1-16 06/24/1990 Yes 1 1:00 X X
VF-697 The Book of Galatians: Faith Brings the Life that Produces Righteousness Gal. 2:16 to 3:3 07/01/1990 Yes 1 :59 X X
VF-698 The Book of Galatians: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Freedom From Sin, Love & the Law Gal. 3:1-3, 11; Rom. 7; Heb. 1 07/08/1990 Yes 1 1:00 X X
VF-699 The Book of Galatians: Faith Makes Us Righteous, Not Bewitching Works (and that goes for Preachers, too!) Gal. 3:1-6; Rom. 4:1-5 07/15/1990 Yes 1 :54 X X

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 7:17:42 AM UTC-8, rutherford wrote:

rutherford

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 1:07:37 PMMar 4
to
BUT I WANT TO WATCH THE MYSTERIES AS MRS SATAN PUTS IT

rpbc

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 2:50:14 PMMar 4
to
Wingo: > No, but I know which is the only entity that has the legal right to receive funds from this lawsuit.

rpbc: Boogie woogie voo doo... not to be demeaning, not at all, but you are playing ball on her field. Entity, legal right... all downstream of corruption... go to the source, the will, the field of play is defined there, not by downstream machinations and chicanery... she had advice you know... advice to muddy the situation with distortions and misrepresentations which then become the order of day apart from original intent. You're listening to lawyers and lawyers created the mess... not that your lawyers are good or bad but they think inside the box they are given... read the will in it's entirety. Scott knew what he was doing in that arena but has demonstrated time and again to be a bad judge of character culminating with Melissa being administrator over his estate... and she has fucked him good, no other way to put it. Read the will.... post it here, legal minds read too on occasion though they seldom post.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages