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 news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!bah.com!nntp.bah.com!ckaun Mon Jul 10 17:01:14 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Carl Kaun)
Subject: materials in Erlich vs. CoS case
Date: 07 Jul 1995 06:59:11 GMT
Organization: Booz-Allen & Hamilton
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
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
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.