Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: Federal court hearing 1/2
Message-ID: <9506240918.0D2JH00@support.com>
References: <3s54th$iif@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35/PRIMP 1.56p
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 09:18:14 -0700
Lines: 178


bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)

>I just came back from the Federal Court Hearing in San Jose
>today, so I'll try to give a synopsis.  This is just a 
>hack job for those who were not there, so please feel free
>to post your own accounts and correct any errors I make.
>
>First, the game players, as near as I can remember 
>from my scribbly notes:
>
>For the Prosecution (CSC/RTC) there were the usual
>suspects:  Helena Kobrin, Janet Kobrin, Tom Small, 
>and at least two other lawyers I did not recognize
>(Ableson and Moxon?). Kobrin, et. al had a few aides 
>to pass notes.
>
>Big Surprise:  the (in)famous Earl Cooley was the main 
>attorney for the Church today.  He was quite dramatic, 
>and often strayed into emotionally charged language, 
>referring to the defense's positions as "a fantasy 
>construction."  More on this later.
>
>Several Scientologists were present in the courtroom, 
>including Jeff Quiros, Warren McShane, and at a few
>others.  As a side note, I sat in the same row as Jeff,
>and there were at least four other scientologists hanging
>around him at any given time (all were women -- odd?).
>I'm pretty sure that they were scientologhists as Jeff 
>kept whispering things in their ears, and they all ung 
>out with Jeff, et. al after the hearing.
>
>All five of these Sci's (including Jeff) wore very nice suits
>that were black and white (some gray, but generally no color).
>Is that some kind of OSA uniform?
>
>For the Defense: Dennis was there, as were representatives for
>Netcom (Randy Rice and ?), Kelmesrud (Dan Leipold and ?), and 
>Dennis Erlich (Carla Oakley and Harold McElhinny).  There were 
>several of the SP crew there, but I'll let everyone pipe up on 
>their own (i'm a bit leery of posting people's names w/o asking 
>first.)
>
>The Plaintiffs had some trouble making their case today. 
>they had a lot of ground to cover, and the Judge set time
>limits on both the plaintiffs and the defense to present their
>arguments (1 1/2 hours apeice?)  Cooley basically ran himself 
>out of time with his dramatic arguing and somewhat exagerrated
>characterizations.  They spent so much time insisting that netcom
>and Klemesrud had knowingly assisted in copyright infringement 
>(and in violating trade secrets, depending on their shifting 
>argument) That they had a mere 1 1/2 minutes left to argue for
>holding Dennis Erlich in contempt of court (on three counts).
>There was some confusion, as their simultaneous claims of 
>violation of trade secrets and copyright infringement
>were muddled several times (primarily by Cooley).  
>
>Cooley also raised an objection towards the end, to which 
>Judge Whyte responded with "I don't follow your reasoning."
>Cooley piped down after that.  (more later, see part two.)
>
>The plaintiffs did raise some interesting points, which I'll
>try to paraphrase below.
>
>The Defense, in my opinion, did a much better job.  They 
>did not run out of time, and the arguments were clear
>and concise.  They also had a splendid closing argument, which
>I'll do my best to present in part two.  They also seemed 
>more prepared to answer Judge Whyte's directed questions.
>
>But hey, I'm biased.
>
>
>There were a number of motions submitted today, here's a list 
>taken from Dennis's post, msg id <9506201120.0FXDJ01@support.com>:
>
>-----typos mine----
>
>[from the sceinos]
>
>        1)  Motion for Preliminary Injunction against me and 
>            resinstatement of TRO (PI?) against tom and Netcom.
>        
>        2)  Motion for sanctions against Carla Oakley of MoFo for
>            including LA Times, St. Pete Times, Forbes Mag, et. al.,
>            articles describing the OT3 Wall-o-fire, in one of her
>            unsealed filings.
> 
>        3)  Several motions for finding me in contempt for postings, 
>            etc., since the raid.
>