Archive Message - 1995
---

From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!news.mit.edu!raoul Tue Oct 17 09:24:29 1995 Path: braintree!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!news.mit.edu!raoul From: raoul@m1-142-20.mit.edu (Nico Garcia) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Total Victory for the Church Followup-To: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk Date: 14 Oct 1995 05:25:35 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 49 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <RAOUL.95Oct14012536@m1-142-20.mit.edu> References: <44qhpr$kig@crl9.crl.com> <44rk6j$103q@news.gate.net> <44t9tf$ddd@crl14.crl.com> <452gku$14g4@otho.cc.flinders.edu.au> <45btcu$53c@crl10.crl.com> <45f3g0$2vu@nyx.cs.du.edu> <45kupr$sik@crl6.crl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: m1-142-20.mit.edu In-reply-to: milne@crl.com's message of 12 Oct 1995 22:51:55 -0700 Xref: braintree alt.religion.scientology:116140 comp.org.eff.talk:65124 In article <45kupr$sik@crl6.crl.com> milne@crl.com (Andrew Milne) writes: OT 7 is not a published work. To post it without the consent of the Church (which would never give such consent) is to violate the trade secret protections which shield those materials and the First Amendment rights of the Church and its parishioners. Sigh. But it was accessible via the Fishman court records, completely legally. Trade secret cannot be shown to apply to such documents, especially in view of their recent accessibility over the Internet. Now, copyright *may* apply, but your lawyers have consistently refused to establish their copyrights *except* in a few isolated lawsuits: and they refused to acknowledge, until this very day, the concept of "fair use" except to deny that it applies. Each judge in the recent cases have specifically *allowed* "fair use" of even the unreleased documents. And Warren McShane acknowledged in the Denver case that OT I thru III are not trade secret (to prevent the entry by Wollersheim into the court record of similarly embarassing "secrets"). Judge Kane specifically stated in his latest order that the unpublished scriptures were NOT to be retained on the hard drives of Wollersheim and Penny's computers, because he recognized the First Amendment issues at stake. He insisted that *all* materials be returned, then when your cult refused, then appealed, you tried to secretly swap the drives after deleting files. He has now commissioned a "special master", a genuinely independent computer expert unlike I-Net, to inspect the drives for tampering, deletions, and to determine exactly what you have done to the records. That way, nobody can make claims of "First Amendment" harassment by the court, and extend the case by appealing it when you lose (as I believe you will, having already contaminated the evidence with your stunningly overbroad search of the FACTNet archives). He is collecting evidence, buddy, not letting your nonsensical "religious trade secrets" confuse the law. Kane, Whyte, and Brinkema are all making new law for dealing with the Internet, dealing with a very large and barratrous group against scattered critics. Good for them, I just wish they would do it faster. The bit about Moxom deleting the OT VIII materials after being especially flownn in to identify the "secret" materials means either his search was overly broad, or the OT VIII stuff about Jesus being a pedophile is indeed real, despite your repeated claims of forgery of it. I am enjoying that.... Nico Garcia raoul@mit.edu My opinions are my own, not MIT's or my employer's or my cat's (Well, maybe my cat's....)

---

Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank