Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: BRINKEMA SHOCKS: SUMM Message-ID: <9601280941.0DMEI00@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 28 Jan 96 09:41:48 -0800 Lines: 137 billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) henri@netcom.com (henry) wrote: >this is untrue. in the case of dennis erlich, who posted a very >small amount of the so-called scriptures, and with commentary, >the raid was even more egregiously unconstitutional, and in every >raid the cult has engaged in (including the ones on lerma and >FACTnet), the judges have without exception later ruled them >unconstitutional. > >in the erlich case, there weren't even any law-enforcement >officials present, when federal marshals are called for in >the writ issued by whyte. in the lerma case, judge brinkema >flat-out stated that the purpose of the litigation was to >harass the critics of scientology. Bill: >1. Anyone that let's somebody search their home without a law >enforcement official could not have been thinking to clearly in the >first place. Bill, I'm not sure, but I doubt I could take the above as a compliment. No, I was not thinking clearly. I had just spent 4 days in Las Vegas manning a trade show booth. Drove home the night before and awakened at 7 am when they came to my door. Twenty-five of them! They were all over my front porch, down my front steps and driveway, in my yard and out into the street. They came in several cars and vans. Leading the way were 2 off-duty narc cops from Inglewood who had been rented for the occasion. A uniformed Glendale Policeman accompanied them. I called 911. The operator said "Well let them in! (dummy) They have a warrant." The Narc officer said they would "use any force necessary" and showed me the phrase on the writ and his gun in one quick motion. The Glendale cop confirmed all this. He too was armed. I was in my bathrobe. It was clear to me that if I resisted in any way I probably would be shot. But perhaps you are right. Next time I will be prepared. I will prevent them from entering until my lawyer arrives and tells me I must. (which he undoubtedly would have if I had had one retained for that morning) Even if it means sustaining physical harm. I was not thinking clearly. I somehow believed that the Constitution protected me from such unwarranted searches and seizures. Foolish me. >What did they do...force their way in? Next time they will have to. With or without a "proper" warrant. +--------------------------------+ While I'm on the subject of search and seizure: Back in 1992 or 3 Priscilla Coates told me that the scienos had set someone up; ie gotten a OSA buyer to pester some dumb dude into making a few copies and selling them for $50. Then they'd gotten an exparte Writ of Seizure (with accellerated discovery) and busted in the guy's door and seized his computer and all his books and papers. We talked for the next three years about the proposition that this could *actually* have happened. I was firmly convinced that Priscilla was ommitting some vital fact about the case and that in fact, it was impossible under the constitution for something like this to happen. I dismissed it as ridiculous. I have been told that by not aggressively opposing the unconstitutional action of the intrusion into my home, it was legally acquiescence. A principle of law is, apparently, that unless you protest, the law assumes you agreed. Further, in New York, 36 kilos of drugs and a confession were thrown out of a case and a conviction for transporting drugs was overturned because the 2 cops had no probable cause to search the car. The right of privacy is obviously still important to that judge. Yet in civil cases there is a provision which sanctions your worst enemies' total right to ransack your homes. It's in the Copyright Law. It's called Ex-parte (meaning without the necessity of having *both parties* (that's you, dummy) present when the matter is ruled upon) Writ of Seizure with expedited discovery. The recipient of such a gift from the courts has not been charged with a crime. He has not been subject to a criminal investigation. He has not had a judge demand probable cause for entry into his home. All that has happend is that some scumbag lawyer has filed and gotten signed by the judge, allegations that the person may have "quoted" too much of someone else's text! Get a f*cking grip America! This is what your law permits! The people whose silence screams loudest about this issue are the big software companies, the big entertainment and media companies and publishers. Is it possible that they *want* to have the power to enter and search the home of anybody who tapes a song and gives it to a friend, or copies a virus program and scans a friend's hard drive? Right now they have that power. No, I obviously wasn't thinking clearly when I let them into my house without forcing them to shoot me. I doubt if I'm thinking clearly now. Because to me, it seems that America has gone totally f*cking nuts. Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *