Open Letter to Judge Whyte

Dear Judge Whyte:

In the company of perhaps 100,000 other people (the readers of the Usenet newsgroups alt.religion.scientology, alt.activism, alt.2600, comp.org.eff.talk, and misc.legal), I read the TRO against Mr. Grady Ward and "all persons in active concert." Was it your intent for this order to apply to random persons on the Internet such as myself? If so, I believe the TRO is a violation of my First Amendment rights to discuss the criminal activities of the cult of Scientology.

Upon reading the TRO you approved, I sorted the list of documents attached and ran a text search on the news spool on one of my accounts to see if any of these documents were there. Some were-- though it is impossible to tell if they are the real thing or not. I pulled out the first one which came up. I had not been inclined to look at this material before (it's *boring*), but your TRO inspired me. Assuming this is real, I can see why the "Church" of Scientology is trying to suppress this material. If carried out, the instructions in this particular bulletin amount to *criminal* acts, to wit, the practice of medicine without a license. I reproduce this widely available document in its entirety for your edification.

> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
> Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
>
> HCO BULLETIN OF 14 NOVEMBER 1978
>
[snip for a.r.s bandwidth] >
>Step Four -- Cures for Illness
>
> You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses of
>the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing them off.
>"Cures for Illness" will then cease to read.
>
[snip!]

Please note that point 4 states that this process of "blowing BTs"

cures illness. The phrases "cease to read" and "no longer read" refer to "auditing" with an E-meter. The "Church" of Scientology is under Court orders stemming from FDA actions in the early 1970s against making such claims involving the use of E-meters. This bulletin (assuming it is real) is written evidence of the level of contempt the "Church" of Scientology has for the Courts. Scientology even has policies on using the court system to abuse critics and former members.

Forbidding discussion of this particular document, including quoting it entirely, is clearly against the public interest as well as a violation of my First Amendment rights. Unless, of course, copyright law can be used to prevent disclosure of instructions for criminal activity.

With respect to "all persons in active concert," I have certainly been sympathetic to the ideals Mr. Ward espouses, and felt much of the rage he must have felt when (as he puts it) the "criminal cult of Scientology" sent Gene Ingram, a wanted felon, to obtain pictures of Mr. Ward's children from his mother by deceit. For what reason did the "Church" of Scientology need pictures of Mr. Ward's children?

Were they planning a kidnapping or was this just a tactic of intimidation? This would certainly be an interesting question for you to skillfully ask of the members of the law firm which paid Mr. Ingram for this particular service. They will be in your court Friday.

I know that taking a stand against Scientology is likely to subject me and my family to the same abuse Mr. Ward has experienced. But there comes a point where people of good will *must* stand up to criminals--even to those who are experts in using the courts to harass. If you think I am being too harsh in this matter, I can supply you with nearly unlimited affidavits and court findings which show a consistent pattern of criminal behavior for this cult over decades of time. Friday I will provide to you a letter from Mr. Arnie Lerma to Judge Brinkma about the stunts pulled on Mr. Lerma in a related case.

Many of those who read these news groups are outside of the US, and thus not subject to your authority. I, however, am local to San Jose and will be in your court Friday morning. It is my position that the public interest in this matter should override *all commercial* copyright concerns. The entire corpus of material the "Church" of Scientology is trying to keep from public view is so at odds with what cult victims are told when they are suckered into it as to constitute fraud--thinly disguised as "religion." On the other hand, if you feel the TRO *does* preclude quoting examples of the copyrighted, trade secret, criminal instruction manuals of the "Church" of Scientology, please let me know.

Sincerely,

H. Keith Henson

=========

From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Judge Whyte upholds DMCA :-(
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:21:49 GMT
Organization: ARSCC
Message-ID: <3cdb591a.314679427@news2.lightlink.com>

On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:33:11 +0200, Tilman Hausherr <tilman@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:

>Judge Whyte upholds DMCA :-(
>http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/nwlink.cgi?ACG=ZZZCQLOYZ0D

"Robin Gross, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief backing ElcomSoft, said Whyte gave "short-shrift" to the First Amendment arguments about computer code.

"Really the appropriate level of scrutiny should have been a strict scrutiny," said Gross."

Judge Whyte is not big on the First Amendment. That was my argument for posting the criminal instruction manual known as NOTs 34.

At the time I did not know that a related scientology "medical method," the Introspection Rundown, had been used a few months earlier on Lisa McPherson--resulting in her death.

Ah well, even if I had, to Judge Whyte commercial interest take precedence over everything.

Here is my original letter to Judge White less most of NOTs 34 (which I could stick in since I have been made a political refugee and am no longer under the authority of the US courts.) You can find the rest of NOTs 34 dozens of places on the net, for example:

http://home.online.no/~heldal/CoS/archive/events/9805henson-case/nots34_anal2.html

March 26, 1996

Ronald M. Whyte, Federal Judge Northern District of California San Jose, CA

Open Letter to Judge Whyte

Dear Judge Whyte:

In the company of perhaps 100,000 other people (the readers of the Usenet newsgroups alt.religion.scientology, alt.activism, alt.2600, comp.org.eff.talk, and misc.legal), I read the TRO against Mr. Grady Ward and "all persons in active concert." Was it your intent for this

order to apply to random persons on the Internet such as myself? If so, I believe the TRO is a violation of my First Amendment rights to discuss the criminal activities of the cult of Scientology.

Upon reading the TRO you approved, I sorted the list of documents attached and ran a text search on the news spool on one of my accounts

to see if any of these documents were there. Some were-- though it is

impossible to tell if they are the real thing or not. I pulled out the first one which came up. I had not been inclined to look at this material before (it's *boring*), but your TRO inspired me. Assuming this is real, I can see why the "Church" of Scientology is trying to suppress this material. If carried out, the instructions in this particular bulletin amount to *criminal* acts, to wit, the practice of

medicine without a license. I reproduce this widely available document in its entirety for your edification.

> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
> Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
>
> HCO BULLETIN OF 14 NOVEMBER 1978
>
[snip for a.r.s bandwidth] >
>Step Four -- Cures for Illness
>
> You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses of
>the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing them off.
>"Cures for Illness" will then cease to read.
>
[snip!]

Please note that point 4 states that this process of "blowing BTs"

cures illness. The phrases "cease to read" and "no longer read" refer

to "auditing" with an E-meter. The "Church" of Scientology is under Court orders stemming from FDA actions in the early 1970s against making such claims involving the use of E-meters. This bulletin (assuming it is real) is written evidence of the level of contempt the

"Church" of Scientology has for the Courts. Scientology even has policies on using the court system to abuse critics and former members.

Forbidding discussion of this particular document, including quoting it entirely, is clearly against the public interest as well as a violation of my First Amendment rights. Unless, of course, copyright law can be used to prevent disclosure of instructions for criminal activity.

With respect to "all persons in active concert," I have certainly been sympathetic to the ideals Mr. Ward espouses, and felt much of the

rage he must have felt when (as he puts it) the "criminal cult of Scientology" sent Gene Ingram, a wanted felon, to obtain pictures of Mr. Ward's children from his mother by deceit. For what reason did the "Church" of Scientology need pictures of Mr. Ward's children?

Were they planning a kidnapping or was this just a tactic of intimidation? This would certainly be an interesting question for you

to skillfully ask of the members of the law firm which paid Mr. Ingram

for this particular service. They will be in your court Friday.

I know that taking a stand against Scientology is likely to subject me and my family to the same abuse Mr. Ward has experienced. But there comes a point where people of good will *must* stand up to criminals--even to those who are experts in using the courts to harass. If you think I am being too harsh in this matter, I can supply you with nearly unlimited affidavits and court findings which show a consistent pattern of criminal behavior for this cult over decades of time. Friday I will provide to you a letter from Mr. Arnie

Lerma to Judge Brinkma about the stunts pulled on Mr. Lerma in a related case.

Many of those who read these news groups are outside of the US, and thus not subject to your authority. I, however, am local to San Jose and will be in your court Friday morning. It is my position that the public interest in this matter should override *all commercial* copyright concerns. The entire corpus of material the "Church" of Scientology is trying to keep from public view is so at odds with what

cult victims are told when they are suckered into it as to constitute fraud--thinly disguised as "religion." On the other hand, if you feel

the TRO *does* preclude quoting examples of the copyrighted, trade secret, criminal instruction manuals of the "Church" of Scientology, please let me know.

Sincerely,

H. Keith Henson

Go Back