Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:39:22 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3684ffda.9601771@news.concentric.net> References: <367d1391.38516354@news.concentric.net> <367B3CF3.6D601098@xs4all.nl> <36802fdf.45763084@news.concentric.net> <367bddf9.2296877@news.newsguy.com> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts039d45.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:156529 grady@gradyward.com (Grady Ward): lepton@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote: >>Usenet discussions always contain a lot of hyperbole, but what you are >>saying about your raid being unconstitutional... That's literally true, >>isn't it? Didn't Judge Whyte, who authorized the raid, later declare it >>unconstitutional? How could a Judge first authorize a suprise raid, and >>later find it unconstitutional? grady >Not only that the same Judge said that all materials seized during this >admitted unconstitutional raid are perfectly admissible since they would >have been produced in discovery anyway. The very same Judge, Grady. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *