Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: THE NON-SCANDAL OF AN Message-ID: <9509171108.0FN6K00@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 11:08:09 -0700 Lines: 163 henri@netcom.com (henry) >[greenberg flap] All better now. We kissed and made up. Me: > Perhaps that's why he's [Greenberg] posting: > > [ ] The cult (not church) has hired him to spin the > newsgroup into a consensus favorable to their legal > positioning. >no way. if they'd hired him we'd have seen him in court >and not here. you don't pay a lawyer to post to the net. >you hire a paid liar like andy milne, who isn't as expensive, >and works for rice and beans. It was a long shot, but a possibility. > [ ] He'd like the cult to contact him and retain him. >i had this suspicion for a while. now, i'll believe it >if i see it. i'd be more worried about him posting his >arguments here if i thought there was a chance in hell >the $cienos would do it. in either case, i find that >giving the $cienos free legal advice better than the >idiotic arguments they're making in court possibly >counter-productive. they might just wise up and start >using it. Obvious liability of these discussions. Since he's been devils advocate a couple of his arguments *have* been used (although unsuccesfully) by the scienos in court. Is his helping them intentional or just based on lack of comprehension of the results of his actions? I leave that to the ars readers to decide. > [ ] He'd like others to know what a hot-shot he is so they > will get in line for the lunch meat he's slicing up. >perhaps. Based on the quality of his arguments, I'd say the clients he gets deserve him. (No offense, Andrew) Robert J. Woodhead >>If he tells you >>something about the law, he is probably right. > >however, so far he's called more than one shot dead wrong, >treating the issues of unclean hands as totally irrelevant >and ignoring the issues of public interest. Big lie he was pushing. >he even thought that there was a case for a summary >judgment! i said this was an absurdity at the time, and >indeed just in a preliminary hearing judge kane stated >the the cult's case was 'unlikely to succeed on its >merits.' now i don't need to be a lawyer to know >that he called that one dead wrong. Toadly, Aytch. >i think his problem is that he's looking at this through >the narrow lens of intellectual property law, and making >the entirely incorrect assumption that this is the only, >or even the most important issue at stake, and assuming >that the judges in these cases are going to view it the >way he does. obviously, the judges don't, and have >practically laughed every one of the cult's motions out >of court without a second thought. S'wat I've been saying to him. >he is also treating the cases as if they are somehow >even remotely legitimate. now a judge has to comply >with protocol and give the case a hearing. in the >case of kane and brinkema, that's about all they're >doing. no statement by either judge has given any >of the cult's claims any weight at all, whereas >andrew takes at face value the idea that dennis >erlich is some sort of lawbreaker. dennis quoted >no more than three pages of cult scriptures, annotated >them, criticized them, and all in all obviously made >fair use of them. nobody but andrew greenberg and >the cult lawyers has treated the claims of the cult >with anything but derision, while andrew seems to >take their propaganda at face value and view erlich >as a criminal. Right. If anyone has a legitimate first amendment right to have quoted their droppings, it is me. >furthermore, he took an altogether patronizing >attitude to erlich, which understandably pissed >him off. Well I shouldn't actually take offense at his juvenile view of my postiton. After all, those who have actually stood up to the cult and refused to be moved can be counted on one hand. >he has stated that he doesn't understand >the notion of actually proving one's claims by >citing the documents in question, stating that >everyone ought to be satisfied to paraphrase them >and weaken their arguments. > >free speech is the right to effective speech. dennis >has been harassed because his speech was effective. Since the limb didn't break when I went out on it, others found the courage to climb out there too. That was why I went out on that limb in the first place. So, of course, I appreciate those who followed. It's not exactly a party out here. >lerma was harassed because his posting of the fishman >affidavit was effective, and hit directly at the >heart of the matter. it was nothing more than the >proof that was needed. without proof, our speech >would amount to nothing more than nattering and >carping, and the freedom of speech granted to a >lone voice in the wilderness is no freedom if it >is taken away when others start to hear that lone >voice. >this is what has infuriated people about andrew >greenberg, as sincere as he may be, and why people >have very little patience for the notion that >a johnny-come-lately add-on privilege like copyright >is more important than the inalienable right to >free speech. Dead-f*cking-on, Aytch! >that he seems to support existing copyright law, >which tolerates such intolerable burdens as >the short-circuiting of fourth amendment procedures >through _ex parte_ procedures and the recent >use of trade secret law to exert prior restraint >is not encouraging. It really puts him in the enemy camp, whether wittingly or not. >the recent procter and gamble case stands out as >yet another example of how the system is broken. > >it doesn't need to be tweaked. > >it needs to be fixed. it's busted. Toadly! >h +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"