Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: JUDGE KANE'S DECISION (LO
Message-ID: <9509191938.0RLIX04@support.com>
References: <trosine.8.0@student.uwsuper.edu>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 19:38:42 -0700
Lines: 86


Dick Cleek <dcleek@pharos.uwc.edu>

>        Judge Kane issued an 18 page decision in the RTC vs. FACTNet
>hearing on 9/15. It is available at the courthouse. Because it goes further
>(or deeper) than his verbal ruling on 9/12, it is being highlighted here
>because it is lengthy and considerable case law is cited. Comments are in
>brackets. Spell check was done but there might be some typos. Omissions
>are shown by ellipses (...).
>
>
>        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>        FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
>
>Civil Action No. 95-B-2143                 [stamped] PUBLISH
>                                        Sep 15 1995
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
>   A California non-profit corporation
>   Plaintiff
>v.
>
>F.A.C.T.NET, INC., a Colorado corporation:
>   LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, an individual;
>   and ROBERT PENNY, an individual.
>   Defendant.
>
>
>        MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
 
    [Re Arnie Lerma's fair use postings]

>As such, the posting may well be considered as having been made
>for the purpose of criticism, comment or research falling within the fair
>use doctrine.  ...
                               
    [Re Trade Sekrit Droppings]

>The court concluded RTC could
>not establish for the purpose of the preliminary injunction motion that
>the documents were "not generally known" as required by the Virginia
>statute.
>        In the course of the hearing before me, RTC changed its position
>with regard to what materials constitute the purported trade secrets. At
>the outset, RTC maintained the entire Works were trade secrets. After
>evidence was heard indicating that the Works were in the public domain,
>RTC claimed that only portions of the Works, rather than the whole, were
>secret. RTC's ambivalence and admission as to the non-secret nature of
>certain portions of the Works casts some doubt on the secret status of
>Works as a whole.
>        The evidence showed the Works are widely known outside of the
>Church through multiple sources. As such, they are not secret within the
>meaning of the Colorado statute and RTC has not shown a substantial
>likelihood of success on the merits of its trade secrets claim. ...
 
    [Re Relationship of Civil Rights to Right to Deceive]

>I am not
>persuaded that a denial of the injunction sought will deprive followers
>of the Church of their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. RTC
>effectively requests that I advance its religion at the expense of
>Defendants' lawful rights to use the materials for the purposes of
>criticism and research. The United States Constitution, common law and
>the Copyright Act preclude me from doing so.
                                                     
    [Weight of Public Interest compared to Copyright]

>        Public interest lies with the free exchange of dialogue on
>matters of public concern. The injunction sought would silence the
>Defendants as participants in an ongoing debate involving matters of
>significant public controversy. Relief of this kind does not serve the
>public interest.
                                                     
    [snip]


>        Dated this 15th day of September, 1995 at Denver, Colorado.
>        /s/ JOHN L. KANE, JR.
>        US SENIOR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
    
    Yea, Judge Kane!  Perhaps there is hope for this country yet.
    
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"