Subject: About the hearing friday Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 11:20:14 -0700 Faithful Reader, Jus
Subject: About the hearing friday
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 11:20:14 -0700
Just a brief note concerning the hearing on Friday, June 23rd at
2 p.m., in San Jose, California, in front of Judge Ronald Whyte:
It is a public hearing. No cameras, recording devices, weapons
or electronic devices are allowed into the courtroom area
(upstairs). There are about 50-75 spectator seats. I expect
some press coverage.
The Judge may (they often do) issue a Preliminary Ruling and post
it in the courthouse on Thursday afternoon. This indicates the
way he is inclined to rule so that the attornies can focus their
arguments the next day accordingly. If anyone is by the
courthouse that afternoon (best about 4:30) and could e-mail me
the gist of the ruling (if there is one), I would appreciate it.
In the hearing itself, there are a number of motions from all
parties before the court. Each party's counsel will have a
opportunity to argue for or against each of the motions.
The motions include:
[from the scienos]
1) Motion for Preliminary Injunction against me and
reinstatement of TRO (PI?) against Tom and Netcom.
2) Motion for sanctions against Carla Oakley of MoFo for
including LA Times, St. Pete Times, Forbes Mag, et. al.,
articles describing the OT3 Wall-o-fire, in one of her
3) Several motions for finding me in contempt for postings,
etc., since the raid.
Attornies expected: Ableson, Small, Moxon, Kobrin, et. al.
1) Motion to vacate Writ of Seizure and return all materials
confiscated to me. Would include personal items such as
bank statement, demo tape of my songs and 2 rolls of film
taken of every nook and cranny of my house during the
raid. (the pictures used in the KSW issue)
2) Motion to lift Temporary Restraining order and restore my
Constitutionally guaranteed rights to comment and
criticize the church for which I was ordained a
minister, using the materials I was trained on.
3) Raise the bond that the scienos had to submit to carry of
the raid from $25000 to $100000.
Attornies to argue: Harold McElhinny, Carla Oakley.
1) Motion to dismiss?
Attorney: Dan Leipold
1) Motion to dismiss.
Attorney: Randy Rice
The judge may require that only one attorney for the scienos (and
MoFo) argues any given motion. Or he may leave it open for more
than one to argue a motion.
The order in which the motions are argued is decided upon by the
judge selecting one of the suggestions made by the respective
It should be quite entertaining. But I wouldn't get my hopes of
if you were me. Although Judge Whyte may have the power to
convene a Federal Grand Jury to look into the matter of the
scienos RICO violations (Whyte mainly hears criminal cases), it
is just as likely that he will do absolutely nothing to change
what we non-lawyers call the "status quo". This would leave me
without Constitutional rights.
In legalese "status quo", however, has another meaning, I am told.
It is the condition of things *before* the court intervened with
If the Judge decides to return to *this* status quo, he will
vacate the Writ of Seizure, drop the TRO, order the return of
my research materials and restore my rights as a citizen and
In the real world it could go either way, so don't get too pumped
up about a victory for free speech just yet.
The judge could put me in the "barry place" with hardened
criminals and lecherous prestudniks for contempt, if he finds
me contemptable, contemptuous or morally repugnant for some
reason. He has all that power over my life.
So, children, this explains why there's two sides to the scale of
You can always get a spanking.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
firstname.lastname@example.org + inForm@primenet.com
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank