Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S
Message-ID: <9509201012.0ECOK01@support.com>
References: <199509200815.BAA04815@netcom19.netcom.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:12:59 -0700
Lines: 79


Robert J. Woodhead <trebor@animeigo.com> explains Greenberg:

>His point is that it would be a good thing to
>try and work out, in consultation with sophists for money who understand
>how the system works, methods of getting the message out that make it much
>more difficult for the CO$ to get permission to go knocking down doors,
>and moreover, the money and time consumed by defending against church
>attacks can be better used spreading the word about the true nature of
>the CO$.
                                                            
    We're seeing the true nature of the cult in these raids and 
    lawsuits.  No backroom surrenders.  If you want to deal for 
    the scienos, do it here and do it honestly.  Who knows, maybe
    something can be worked out, if the solution includes a 
    "hol'lotta zeros."

>It is expensive, but there are plenty of lawyers who do plenty of pro-bono
>work, and plenty more who would probably love to take on the CO$ on a
>contingency basis.
     
    Someone tell Mr. Clueless how happy lawyers are to take on 
    the cult for money, let alone contingency.

>An ignorant but intelligent outsider (like a
>judge or a jury) 
 
    ... and like you are pretending to be ...

>is going to be making judgements about who is more credible.
        
    No problem.  The cult of scientology is pretty well know for 
    being a criminal enterprise and thought of with disgust in 
    the courts.

>You want to appear much more credible and responsible than the CO$.  And how
>ironic, how _wonderful_, that the best possible way to do that might well be
>to take exquisite care to respect their "intellectual property!"
               
    I tried doing exactly what they say for 15 years.  I ain't 
    gonna do it again.

>It's truly elegant.
                      
    Getting their enemies to surrender at the moment of the
    cult's total defeat would be quite a coup.  Phat chance.

>Please keep in mind that in an injunction, the judge must construe everything
>in the light most beneficial to the defending party.  It is quite possible
>that Judge Brinkema bent over backwards to give Arnie the benefit of the
>doubt,
>and I hope this is the case, but the hard fact of the matter is that just
>because
>the CO$ lost the injunction does not mean that the CO$ is sure to lose the
>lawsuit.
                                                     
    Gee, Professor.   Could you 'splain that again?

>It merely means that the Judge is saying "The CO$ case isn't a slam dunk,
>and/or
>they haven't proved that the injunction is required to prevent irreperable
>damage."
>
>Don't get me wrong.  I pray Arnie prevails.  I just don't want to break out
>the bubbly prematurely.
                                                   
    The party's been planned for for months.  Don't worry about 
    the date.  The Committee will decide.

>No, he means that when you are a jerk, people are less likely to believe the
>truth when you tell it to them.
                                         
    Yes.  Perhaps that's what's been happening on these threads.

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"