Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S Message-ID: <9509180931.0DDAR00@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 09:31:00 -0700 Lines: 120 clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk (Sister Clara) >Once more I stick my head above the parapet......... > >For months now, I have seen the occasional poster make the comment, when >getting involved in the discussion of the legal issues raised by the Co$ >raids, that somebody should invite a real lawyer into the newsgroup to >comment on various speculations. Eventually, someone actually does this and >what happens? > >The lawyer is attacked as a Co$ stooge and/or a scam artist (now where have >we heard THAT before) touting for business. Why? Because his comments on the >legal issues fly in the face of what most of us would believe is natural >justice. But we are not dealing with natural justice here. We are dealing >with US law and the US Constitution. While the two forms of justice should >be identical, in practice that is not always the case. > >People can scream and shout, they can attack the messenger but, at the end >of the day, it is US law which will adjudicate and that is implemented by >human beings. We all know it is flawed - so is UK law. > >Andrew appears to be under attack due to the following: > >1. He failed to appreciate (he didn't know!) that the case of Dennis is very >different from the cases against the FACTNet 3. He assumed, wrongly, that >Dennis had posted complete documents as Arnie has done. Perhaps he should >have checked more thoroughly. I am sure he could have been put right a >little more gently. He certainly hastily apologised once the mistake was >realised. > >2. He dug up the Urantia case and pointed out the possible precedents >contained in that ruling. The Co$ lawyers quoted the same case in the Arnie >Hearing. Perhaps that is coincidence, perhaps not. Either way, does anyone >seriously believe that the Co$ lawyers would not have discovered this case >for themselves? As it is, Andrew actually WARNED us about this case. Do >Arnie's lawyers, Wollersheim's lawyers, Dennis' lawyers read this newsgroup >as well? Whether Andrew had posted about this case or not, it would have >been found anyway (and there is evidence that the Co$ is quite interested in >Urantian goings on in any case). > >3. The preliminary judgements have gone in favour of the defendants despite >the points that Andrew has raised. But these are PRELIMINARY judgements. >They were set up to examine the position regarding the original seizure >orders. as I understand it. Quite rightly, both judgements (all three if you >include the Washington Post case) have demanded the return of the seized >files and equipment and raised some legitimate doubts about the behaviour of >the cult. But that is NOT the end of the cases. Both may yet come to trial >and all those issues that Andrew has been exploring will be raised. I am >sure that, if he had been asked whether it was likely that the judges would >rule in favour of the return of the seized items, Andrew would have voiced >the opinion that this was highly likely. There were some friendly statements >made by both Kane and Brinkema during those hearings. But this is not a full >trial remember. > >4. Andrew has suggested forcibly that critics do not try and stretch the >defence of "fair use" beyond that which is set down in precedent. That seems >eminently reasonable. He suggests that critics should stop fighting on >ground where the legal position is distinctly hazy, regroup and alter >tactics slightly so that the Co$ is put permanently on the defensive. the >advice is worth listening to, methinks. > >I seek no friends and I seek no enemies in throwing myself into the middle >of this fight and trying to keep the protagonists apart. Before this >argument degenerated into fisticuffs, there was a cogent debate going on. >Now all I am seeing is ad hominem and "dead-agenting". > >Let's just think about motes and beams for a little while, eh? > >One last point (and probably it accounts more than anything else for the >emotional intensity of this debate). It is all very well arguing points of >law, but it is Dennis' butt that is on the line here. We can all be highly >principled when it is someone else's arse in a sling. Dennis is >understandably sick and tired of having to correct erroneous comments about >the details of his case - remember that, for him, this nightmare has been >going on for more than 7 months. He is STILL waiting for the Whyte >judgement. In these circumstances, any comments about Dennis' (or indeed any >others') cases should only be made after careful checking of the facts. All >the details can be found on the regular web pages. > >And if you DO decide to comment on Dennis' case - how about a small donation >(or even a large one) to his defence fund? All the publicity has been about >the most recent raids in the last few weeks. At least something appears to >be actually happening with them. But Dennis' case is still going on....... > >So, a contribution to the Dennis Erlich Defence Fund is in order as well as >an occasional encouraging e-mail to the man who has, through his courage, >brought the actions of the vicious cult to the attention of tens of >thousands. I wish I had half his guts. > >Please folks, let's get back to fighting the REAL enemy - the Co$. > >And now I am going to borrow an old sig of Tony's (I am sure that he won't >mind)..................... > >************************************************************************** > >SUPPORT THE DENNIS ERLICH DEFENSE FUND > >Checks drawn in foreign currency on foreign banks ARE accepted. >Send checks to MORRISON & FOERSTER, 345 California Street, San Francisco, >California 94104-2675. Telephone: (415) 677-7000 Fax: (415) 677-7522 >Contact People: Carla Oakley and Katie Walsh. >MAKE SURE YOU LABEL YOUR CHECK "DENNIS ERLICH DEFENSE FUND". Checks >should be made out to Morrison & Foerster. For verification of this info, >email ssteele@eff.org (Shari Steele) > >************************************************************************** >Sister Clara - SP3 - Magpie - LoX >************************************************************************ >* Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy * >************************************************************************ Thanks, hon. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"