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 news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!rockyd!cmcl2!is2.NYU.EDU!spurgeon Thu Jul 20 11:48:15 1995 Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!rockyd!cmcl2!is2.NYU.EDU!spurgeon From: spurgeon@is2.nyu.edu (Keith Spurgeon) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: A Canadian Supreme Court Decision due 7/20 Date: 19 Jul 1995 01:47:49 GMT Organization: New York University Lines: 55 Message-ID: <3uho85$5mt@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: is2.nyu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Copyright 1995 Canada NewsWire Ltd. Canada NewsWire July 14, 1995, Friday HEADLINE: THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON APPEALS DATELINE: OTTAWA, July 14 BODY: THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. ON THURSDAY JULY 20, 1995. 3. Morris Manning v. S. Casey Hill - and between - Church of Scientology of Toronto v. S. Casey Hill (Ont.)(24216) 24216 MORRIS MANNING v. S. CASEY HILL; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO v. S. CASEY HILL (Ont.) S. Casey Hill, Crown counsel, advised the O.P.P. in connection with a search warrant authorizing a search of the premises of the Church of Scientology of Toronto. Documents were seized and some of them ordered sealed. An order was obtained granting access to the sealed documents. The Church retained Manning to commence a contempt application against Hill and the lawyer who had obtained the order. On September 17, 1984, Manning gave instructions for the notice of motion to be served. The same day, Manning attended a press conference arranged by the Church and answered questions about the contempt proceedings and read a passage from the notice of motion which alleged, among other things, that Hill had breached the order sealing the documents. The notice of motion requested that Hill and the lawyer be fined or imprisoned. The allegations against Hill were found to be totally false and without foundation. The contempt charges were dismissed on a motion for non-suit and Hill commenced an action for damages for libel. The action was allowed and Manning and the Church were found jointly liable for general damages in the amount of $ 300,000.00, and the Church alone liable for aggravated damages of $ 500,000.00 and punitive damages of $ 800,000.00. Manning and the Church were ordered, jointly and severally, to pay prejudgment interest from January 1, 1985, to March 11, 1992, in respect of the award of general damages, and the Church was ordered to pay prejudgment interest on the aggravated damages during the same period. Manning and the Church were made jointly and severally liable for Hill's costs. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part, on the question of prejudgment interests and costs. ---end

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank