Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From!!!!!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!!!ckaun Mon Jul 10 17:01:14 1995 Path:!!!!!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!!!ckaun From: (Carl Kaun) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: materials in Erlich vs. CoS case Date: 07 Jul 1995 06:59:11 GMT Organization: Booz-Allen & Hamilton Lines: 93 Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: The purpose of the following is (primarily) to tell what I am doing to obtain legal documents in the Erlich vs. CoS case, to avoid duplication and secure aid, etc. OK, I called Judge Whyte's recorder about getting a transcript of the June 23 hearing. As of Wednesday, it wasn't quite ready. She offered to send it to me when it was ready - for approx $85. It seems the price of justice is not cheap. I hate to seem like a cheapskate (I really am one, I just hate to seem like it), but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to shell out quite that much just yet. It kind of cuts into what I could send to Dennis' defense fund. I went down to the office of the Clerk of the District Court today, to see what else might be available. I was particularly interested in the briefs submitted by the attorneys, and in Dennis' deposition. I did not see Dennis' deposition listed on the docket. Why, I don't know. I got a copy of what's on the docket (what is called the 'index of pleadings' on Ron Newmans Scientology vs. the Net Web page ( It has 176 items on it, compared with 84-87 on the 'index of pleadings'. Cost: $9.50 to get a computerized printout of 19 pages. Justice is not cheap! I got a copy of - Memorandum by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO (entry date 5/15/95) - Declaration by Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich re motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO (entry date 5/15/95) (I'm sorry to go on about the cost. I'm just quite surprised at it, and thought I'd share with a.r.s in the public interest) Cost: $28.00 to photocopy 56 pages. That's $0.50/page for photocopies made by the Clerk, and I thought she said a maximum of fifteen pages, but maybe it was fifty since I got them to do about that number. I could have done it on a public copier at $0.20/copy, if I'd had $10-12 in coins (the machine said nickles were preferred), or I could have taken the documents to Kinko's (I was surprised that I could apparently take them out of the clerk's office), or I could have gone to a Walgreen's Drug Store to buy a copy card to make copies at $.07/page, but there might be a minimum amount to buy a card, like $100. Electronic copies of the documents are not available. In response to my previous post, I received a couple of responses from a.r.s readers who generously offered to scan the transcript into an OCR. I will contact these persons to see if they are willing to scan the documents I obtained, so that the documents might be posted to a.r.s, and made available for archives like Ron Newman's Web page. Unfortunately, both readers made clear that faxes did not scan into an OCR satisfactorily, so I will have to snail mail them photocopies, and this will incur some delay. I am curious how Ron obtained electronic versions of all of the material on his Web page. Maybe there's lessons there that I can apply. My assessment of the briefs is that they appear to be quite devastating to CoS' copyright and trademark claims. In the case of copyrights (attachment A, consisting of published works), certain of the copyrights have expired and cannot be renewed; certain of the copyrights have expired and renewal terms have bested in the LRH's statutory heirs rather than his estate; and titles of certain of the copyrights do not match the titles of what is claimed to be infringed; among other arguments. In the case of trademarks/unpublished copyrights (attachment B), the greater portion of the materials are public by virtue different publications and unsealed judgements; there is evidence of insufficient protection of the materials to maintain trade secret claims; and there is no basis for required commercial value; among other arguments. In all, the arguments in the documents I obtained address something like two dozen documents in attachments A and B. There are additional documents contained in an attachment C that I do not have a copy of, and I do not know what the status of these are. This might consititute a fairly large number of documents, considering the scale of what Dennis described as having been taken from his home. I did not see any arguments concerning items obviously inappropriate to the seizure, such as Dennis' bank statement, or concerning the pictures taken of the inside of his home. I surmise that Dennis will address these in his counterclaims, when these are made. I think I'm getting a little worried about Judge Whyte. It seems to me that he might have made summary judgement to return at least part of the materials, including published materials that are commercially available. I'd think the time period from May 15 when the briefs were submitted to June 23 would have given him time to make a few determinations.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank