Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: SCIENTOLOGY --- LURKE Message-ID: <9512170931.0DDY000@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 17 Dec 95 09:31:46 -0800 Lines: 99 DarkMoon >Diane Richardson wrote: > richieb@teleport.com (RichieB) wrote: > > >> 1. In the case of Dennis Erlich (and similar "search and siesure" > >> assaults), how on Earth was a private organization like the Church > >> (sic) of $cientology able to so freely ransack private homes and > >> materials with (apparently) virtually no official presence! Surely > >> there should at least have been careful supervision of the choice of > >> materials they chose to confiscate! > > >It would seem there should have been. Federal Marshall's were > >present at the Lerma raid at least (I think and Erlich's, too, but I'm > >not as familiar with those circumstances) and Arnie said they did > >nothing to interfere with what was happening. > > In Dennis Erlich's case, there were NO federal marshals present. > The writ of seizure had a handwritten clause addended to the > statement "in the presence of a federal mashal" which added > something like "or other designated officer of the court." > > These "officers of the court" designated by RTC were off-duty > policemen from nearby communities. They were hired by RTC's > attorneys and paid for their services by RTC. So the "officers > of the court" who were supposed to be overseeing the legality of > the seizure were actually employees of the people doing the > seizing ! > > >The apparent misuse of these ex parte writs is something that > >demands more attention. The process is a real threat to privacy > >rights. > > It certainly is. It takes a scum-sucking cult like the "Church" > of Scientology[tm] to utterly debase the law by abusing it so. Darkmoon: >Are you guys saying that: >They keep your stuff and not a court? Yup. >After they get a court order, thye just can Rent-a-cop, and no official >person has to be there? There was one uniformed city policeman there for the first (of 7) hours. He was just there as a "courtesy" to "keep the peace". Ie. he was supposed to shoot me if I became violent. >If so how come the US law allows that? Aren't laws supossed to protect >the individuals? Hahaha! 100% rong as per usuial. Laws protect businesses and rich individuals with enough money to afford the outrageously expensive legal process. What country do you live in, anyway? Don't you watch TV? You still believe what they taught you in grammar school about inalienable rights? >basically from what you are saying is that If they don't like me they >get a court order against me for whatever reasons, take my computers >away from me and any piece off paper that is in my house. With that they >ruin my business (can't work without my putters) and have insight in any >of my affairs since they would posess all my documents. Precisely. That's what they did to me. Except they didn't take the computers. They just made tape backups of all the data. What a conetree. >With those documents they could put me in jail since they would know my >bank accounts and thye could have one off their new members which was >recruited through "Crimeanon" (or what ever their recruting center in >jails is called) in a federal prision, which could be a known Drug >dealer, transfer funds to my account(s) , and I could get accussed off >money laundry. -- WAY COOOOOL-- In my case the dug up (and I mean that literally) my still cult involved ex-wife who had been hiding my child from me and gave her my bank account number so they could seize my account for not paying back child-support, which I couldn't cause I didn't know where she was with the child. Fun, huh? >Have a nice X-mas and a happy new year!! Sure thing. That is if the scienos can't arrange otherwise. >DarkMoon +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *