On Tue, 02 May 2000 00:52:23 GMT, "Fredric L. Rice"

<frice@skeptictank.org> wrote:

>One interesting extraction from that 1995 posting:
>
> Comments have been made by individuals on the
> Internet that the Church of Scientology was attempting
> to stifle freedom of speech and this was why this
> lawsuit was filed. This could not be further from the
> truth.
>
>"What's true for you." The purpose of a lawsuit is not to
>win but to harass... Now who was it that said that?
Not only *that* guy, but...

I think it was District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in 1995 said something like that. Check out the second paragraph below:

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, v. ARNALDO PAGLIARINA LERMA, DIGITAL GATEWAY SYSTEMS, THE WASHINGTON POST, MARC FISHER, and RICHARD LEIBY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 95-1107-A 908 F. Supp. 1362; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17833; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1258; 24 Media L. Rep. 1115 (Filed November 28, 1995) ...

III. ATTORNEY'S FEES "Because The Post has been found to be the prevailing party on the copyright claim, it qualifies for an award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The RTC opposes such an award. Whether to award such fees is a matter left to the Court's discretion. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 127 L. Ed. 2d 455, 510 U.S. 517, 114 S. Ct. 1023, 1033 (1994). In deciding the appropriateness of a fee award, the Court should consider the motivation of the plaintiff in bringing the action for copyright infringement and the extent to which plaintiff's position [*1368] is reasonable and well-grounded in fact and law.

On the first issue, the Court finds that the motivation of plaintiff in filing this lawsuit against The Post is reprehensible.

Although the RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices [**15] of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon the law as a tool to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

(Declaration of Mary Ann Werner, Attachment A, at C5; see also The Post's reply brief at p. 24, note 23).

The context and extent in which The Post copied and quoted from the AT documents was so de minimis that this Court finds that no reasonable copyright holder could have in good faith brought a copyright infringement action. Although there are limits beyond which the media may not go, even in the interests of news gathering and reporting, this case does not come anywhere near those limits.

Therefore, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees is appropriate and granted."

Grady Ward grady@gradyward.com http://www.gradyward.com/ voice (707) 826-7712 fax (413) 832-2600 PGP! 7E0E EF0E 613D CEB8 6E8D 9D57 069F 8BC0 8C88 EB82 MESSAGES NOT CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY SIGNED MAY NOT BE AUTHENTIC

Go Back