A request to Judge Whyte

A request to Judge Whyte
Scientology

From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
Subject: A request to Judge Whyte
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:02:43 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3d66323c.33860909@news2.lightlink.com>

H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada

905-844-6216
416-529-2789 (cell)

hkhenson@cogeco.com

August 23, 2002

Judge Ronald M. Whyte
Federal Court House
280 South First St.
San Jose, CA 95113

Dear Judge Whyte:

Between the various injunctions and the hints the court made at the August 13 hearing, I find it impossible to present a defense against the contempt claim made by RTC.

For example, I am told that the document I referred people to in the context of a posting to a.r.s is about 4 parts comments to one part of NOTs 34, certainly relevant to a determination of it being fair use. However, if the court ultimately decides it is not fair use I could not supply the court with a copy of it without possibly violating the injunction of "possessing" even if only between printing and mailing. The Google reference states:

"Operation Clambake presents: NOTS34: a scholars commentary ... DM in this case is not to be confused with David Miscavige, who is a known squirrel, and in many cases has altered LRH technology beyond recognition. ..."

It is, of course, my contention that this particular document is fair use. RTC seems to have thought the same. Some months ago they forced Google to remove references to a number of pages on www.xenu.net (generating an amazing amount of bad publicity, see http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/search.cgi?search=scientology and http://www.microcontentnews.com/articles/googlechurch.htm.) This page was not among them, and may still be found today through Google.

This would lead a person to conclude that RTC considers this well-known document to be fair use or they would have forced Google to remove links to it. However, given the recent hints by the court, I don't see how I can provide the court with even directions to find the page through Google.

I am frankly seeking guidance from the court as to how I can brief the court in defending against RTC's motion. Perhaps the court would consider this letter a motion for a temporary waver of the injunction terms so I could brief the court?

Very Truly Yours,

H. Keith Henson

Cc T. R. Hogan