Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: Brinkema Decision Message-ID: <9509030858.0CLU700@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 03 Sep 95 08:58:25 -0700 Lines: 156 henri@netcom.com (henry) I've been enjoying your little chat for a while. Hope you don't mind me joining in. Diane: >henry, the Washington Post did not publish all 103 pages >of the OT documents it got from the court record. It >copied what Judge Brinkema described as "only a >minute portion of the AT documents" in the article the >Post published. Aytch: >yes, but most of his statements also coincided with >what lerma will likely claim as a defense. Explain it to her, henry. She thinks she's sooo smart. >>this significantly weakens the case against lerma, who >>provided them the documents. > >I fail to see how you can arrive at this conclusion. >simple. it removed all doubt Well, some doubt, anyway. >of any seriousness being >given the notion that the records were 'stolen,' treated >with almost casual disdain the notion that the materials >are 'trade secrets,' gave short shrift to the idea that >the Co$ is being denied use of the materials or that >the copyright infringements are causing any direct financial >damage to the church , and this more or less leaves >only the fact that lerma posted the whole fishman affidavit >as potential grounds. But only with regard to presumption of success on merits. >left only with that, i can't see the court coming to a >decision that a single posting of the material, in a string >of dozens of similar postings of legal materials, in >any way constitutes a damaging infringement. Very strong argument. >documents that the Post used were obtained from the >Federal Court of the Central District of California, not from >Arnie Lerma. That's made quite clear in the opinion. > >the post originally obtained the documents from arnie, >gave those materials back to the church and then >went and got their own copy from the same original source >from which FACTnet got theirs. there is a direct >link to the courthouse in both occasions, and arnie >was clearly not the sole source, nor a thief, nor >committing repeated offenses, as the cult's liars >claim. Right. >Judge Brinkema did not consider Arnie Lerma's case >at all in this opinion. She only dealt with the case against >the Washington Post. But she did acknowledge that the issues were in the news, thus linking them together to that extent. >and how this decision could somehow manage _not_ to >affect arnie's case positively is beyond me. Well, Diane? >the decision is clearly applicable in many parts, >and clearly eliminates many of the claims which >could have potentially influenced arnie's case >negatively, simplifying it to a conflict between >public interest and copyright law. That is a seriouly damaging judicial view of the scienos' actions. >the fact that brinkema cites in the memorandum the >example of the pentagon papers, which also involved >wholesale duplication, almost looks like a deliberate >hook to involve the lerma case. Yess! >I was delighted to read Judge Brinkema's opinion, but >I think it's a little premature to predict the outcome of >Arnie's case based on what Judge Brinkema wrote about >the Washington Post. There are vast differences between >the two. Party pooper! >i didn't predict lerma's case. however, i don't see >the difference between the two cases to be all that >vast, actually. i see the only difference as being >the amount of information quoted, or at least the >only difference of decisive importance. I think henry's right, Diane. >even if the court does decide against arnie, which >i find highly unlikely, i can't imagine them assessing >anything more than a nominal fine. I think even a nominal fine would have to be appealed in all the cases. Mine at least, for sure. >the free speech issue in this case is clear, and the >precedent of allowing for a criminal cult an amount of >prior restraint which was not granted to the united >states government for a matter of national security >is an obvious danger to first amendment protections >and the firsts amendment. > >this memorandum, though non-binding, clearly indicates >a judicial attitude which supports the public interest >and inalienable first amendment protections over such >technicalities as copyright, which is not a constitutional >right nor commonly recognized as a natural right. IMHO, henry is toadly correct. >in short, what are the differences between the lerma >case and the washington post case which cause you to >say that a decision such as this shouldn't incline me >to believe that the case against lerma is significantly >weakened? > >the similarities seem more striking than the differences. > >Diane Richardson >referen@ibm.net > >h >- -- > Xenu's Famous House o' Clams T-shirts! > *All* profits go to MoFo to help with the Dennis Erlich Defense Fund. > Email to: ladyada@gnu.ai.mit.edu for details > $15 per shirt, 3 colors. Design available at > http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html Enlightening discussion. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"