Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COST MUST TAKE OVER R Message-ID: <9510252121.0U0BJ04@support.com> References: <46j4h5$9jl@news.onramp.net> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 21:21:40 -0700 Lines: 47 anon47fa@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Name withheld by request) >referen@ibm.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: > >[clip] > >>The Copyright Office database shows that all of L.Ron Hubbard's >>"religious" works are owned by COST, not by RTC. This is also >>detailed in all the recent court documents I've seen, including >>Judge Whyte's recent ruling. > >[clip] > >COST was named as a counter defendant by Mayo and by CNC in >their counter-suits (RTC vs Scott/Wollersheim consolidated >cases.) These counter-suits were dismissed on summary >judgement -- $cn argued that it's actions (of harassment) >were protected by religious privilege as the tenets of >their religion required that they perform such actions >against apostates. That dismissal is under appeal. > >they argued that they were allowed to harass others under >the 1st Amendment, and got summary judgement???? incredible. >that's nearly as bad as the recent Armstrong ruling. where's >the ACLU? what court/appeal court heard/will hear this? > >Furthermore, COST filed a lawsuit (possibly its first) >against CNC, David Mayo andcopyrights now? > >if COST owns the copyrights, does RTC have any legal standing to bring >suit for copyright infringement, e.g. as in Erlich, Lerma, FACTNet? i >understand RTC has a 'charter' to protect the copyrights, but is this >sufficient to provide standing for bringing suit? Parently so. The managed to sue me and not get laughed out of court. RTC leases the barratry rights on Tubby's droppings. >The Shell Piercer >for the >Dog Watch Committee +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"