Archive Message - 1995
---

From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!wb24+ Thu Jan 18 10:20:23 1996 Path: braintree!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!wb24+ From: William Bardwell <wbardwel+@CMU.EDU> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: CO FACTNet defendants answer to 1st verified complaint, and counterclaim Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 01:53:27 -0500 Organization: Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 411 Message-ID: <kkx=Db200YUrMSN1hA@andrew.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: po7.andrew.cmu.edu OCRed but clean, symbols translated to text... You need the 1st verified complaint to decifer this... --- [stamped]FILED U.S. DISTIRCT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO 95 OCT 12 P4:04 JAMES R. MANSPEAKER CLERK BY ??? DEP. CLK IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non- profit corporation; and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. F.A.C.T.NET, INC., a Colorado corporation; LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, an individual; and ROBERT PENNY, an individual, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR: (1) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, (2) TRADE SECRETS MISAPPROPRIATION (C.R.S. sections 7-74-102 et seq.) COUNTERCLAIM, AND JURY DEMAND ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants, F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., (hereinafter "FACTNET"), Lawrence Wollersheim and Robert Penny, through their counsel, Faegre & Benson, P.L.L.P., and answer the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint herein. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS As to the allegations appearing under the title, "Introductory Averments," Defendants: 1. On information and belief, deny the allegations of the first sentence of para. 1; are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the second sentence of para. 1, and therefore deny the same; deny the allegations of the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of para. 1. [page 2] 2. Are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of para. 2 and therefore deny the same. 3.-4. Deny the allegations of paras. 3 and 4. 5. Admit that RTC obtained a temporary restraining order and a writ of seizure in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but deny that the raid and search of Mr. Lerma's premises on August 11, 1995 constituted execution of the writ of seizure; deny the facts which RTC claims it first learned on August 15, 1995, and deny the other allegations of para. 5 except as specifically admitted. 6. Admit that this action was filed August 21, 1995, and on that date Hon. Lewis Babcock issued a temporary restraining order and order of impoundment, and ordered the clerk to issue a writ of seizure to be executed at the residences of defendants Wollersheim and Penny, which writ speaks for itself; deny the allegations of para. 6 except as so admitted. 7. Admit that at the time of the raid of the premises of Wollersheim and Penny on August 22, 1995, computer equipment, floppy disks, computer compact disks, computer tapes, and hard copy documents were seized, but deny the allegations of para. 7 except as so admitted. 8. Deny the allegations of the first sentence of para. 8; admit that Lerma disclosed to The Washington Post the document - 2 - [page 2] known as the "Fishman affidavit," but deny the allegations of the second sentence of para 8 except as so admitted. 9. Deny the allegations of para. 9. 10. Admit that Arnaldo Lerma made a posting to the Internet on or about August 1, 1995, but deny the allegations of para. 10 except as so admitted. 11.-14. Deny the allegations of paras. 11, 12, 13, and 14. JURISDICTION AND VENUE As to the allegations appearing under the title, "Jurisdiction and Venue," this defendant: 15. Admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but deny the allegations of para. 15 except as so admitted. 16. Admit that venue is proper, but deny the allegations of para. 16 except as so admitted. THE PARTIES As to the allegations appearing under the title, "The Parties," defendants: 17.-18. Are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paras. 17 and 18 and therefore deny the same. 19. Admit that FACTNET is a Colorado non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Colorado with its principal place of business in Golden, Colorado; admit that - 3 - [page 4] FACTNET also operates out of the residences of Wollersheim and Penny; deny the allegations of para 19 except as so admitted. 20.-21. Admit the allegations of paras. 20 and 21. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS As to the allegations appearing under the title, "General Allegations," defendants: 22. On information and belief, admit that L. Ron Hubbard wrote materials concerning the Scientology religion, but are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the other allegations of para 22, and therefore deny the same; and, on information and belief, deny that Hubbard created all of the Advanced Technology. 23. Are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the first sentence of para. 23, and therefore deny the same; deny the allegations of para. 23 except as so admitted; on information and belief, deny that L. Ron Hubbard is the author of all of the Advanced Technology. 24.-30. Are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paras. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, and therefore deny the same. 31. Deny the allegations of para. 31. 32. Deny the allegations of the first sentence of para. 32; are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the other allegations of para. 32 and therefore deny the same. - 4 - [page 5] 33. Deny the allegations of para. 33. 34. Admit that Wollersheim was a Scientologist between the years 1969 and 1979 and that he received access to OT materials; deny the allegations of para. 34 except as so admitted. 35. Admit that Wollersheim was permitted access to OT materials, but deny the allegations of para. 35 except as so admitted. 36. Admit that Wollersheim signed agreements that were provided by the Church of Scientology, but deny the allegations of para. 36 as so admitted. 37. Admit that Wollersheim left the Scientology religion in or about 1979, and that in or about 1994, Wollersheim, along with others, founded FACTNET; deny the allegations of para. 37 except as so admitted. 38. Admit that defendant Penny is a former Scientologist who left the religion in approximately 1986, and that Penny was involved with the Church of Scientology from the 1970's to 1986, and that while he was in the Church of Scientology he received access to OT materials; deny the allegations of para. 38 except as 80 admitted. 39. Admit that between 1981 and 1985, Penny received access to some OT materials and signed agreements that were provided to him by the Church of Scientology; deny the allegations of para. 39 except as so admitted. 40.-41. Deny the allegations of paras. 40 and 41. - 5 - 42. Admit that on or about August 15, 1995, the defendants made a posting which speaks for itself; deny the allegations of para. 42 except as so admitted. 43.-53. Deny the allegations of paras. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF As to the allegations appearing under the title, "First Claim for Relief," defendants: 54. Plead to the paragraphs incorporated by reference in para. 54 as set forth in para. 1 through 53 above. 55.-60. Deny the allegations of para 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF As to the allegations appearing under the title, "Second Claim for Relief," defendants: 61. Plead to the paragraphs incorporated by reference in para. 61 as set forth in paras. 1 through 60 above. 62. Are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of para. 62, and therefore deny the same. 63.-67. Deny the allegations of paras. 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. - 6 - [page 7] THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF As to the allegations appearing under the title, "Third Claim for Relief," defendants: 68. Plead to the paragraphs incorporated by reference in para. 68 as set forth in paras. 1 through 67 above. 69.-77. Deny the allegations of paras. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77. SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Plaintiff's claims against defendants are barred, in whole or part by waiver. 3. Plaintiff's claims against defendants are barred, in whole or part by estoppel. 4. Plaintiff's claims against defendants are barred, in whole or part by the doctrine of unclean hands. 5. Plaintiff's first claim for relief is barred under the doctrine of copyright misuse. I. Plaintiff has failed to adequately protect its trade secrets and confidential information. Plaintiff's information is no longer secret because it is publicly available and disseminated throughout the public domain. - 7 - [page 8] 7. Enforcement of any "confidentiality agreements" with defendants Wollersheim and Penny are barred by reason of duress and failure of consideration. 8. Defendants actions are protected, and the Plaintiff's claims are barred, by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and by Article II Sections 6, 7, 10, 20, and 24 of the Constitution of Colorado. 9. Plaintiff's copyright claim is barred because the plaintiff has made misstatements and misrepresentations in connection with its applications for registration, and misrepresented the status of its purported copyrights to this Court. 10. Some or all of the works the copyrights of which the plaintiff claims have been infringed are in the public domain. 11. Some or all of the works the copyrights of which the plaintiff claims have been infringed are not entitled to protection because they do not fall within the subject matter of copyright. 12. Plaintiffs' claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is preempted, in whole or in part, by federal law. 13. Defendants use of the materials in question constitutes fair use. 14. Defendants use of the material is protected under the Library and Archive Exception of section 108 of the Copyright Act. - 8 - [page 9] 15. Plaintiff's claims are barred by section 507 of the Copyright Act which provides a statute of limitations as to any alleged infringements prior to three (3) years from filing of suit. 16. Plaintiff's claims are barred due to an unconstitutional and improper seizure and search of their property. 17. Defendants had innocent intent within the scope of Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act. 18. All damages, if any, assessed against defendant Wollersheim, should be set off by the outstanding judgment owed by the Church of Scientology. 19. Plaintiffs' claims are barred as a result of plaintiff RTC's unconstitutional search and seizure of defendants' property in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Art. II, Sec. 7 of the Constitution of Colorado. 20. Plaintiffs are barred from introducing any evidence obtained as a result of the unconstitutional search and seizure of defendants' property in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Art. II, Sec. 7 of the Constitution of Colorado. 21. Plaintiff Bridge Publications' claims are barred to the extent they are based on any of defendants' materials which were obtained in the unconstitutional search and seizure which did not permit disclosure to or review by third parties. - 9 - [page 10] 22. Plaintiff Bridge Publications is barred from introducing any evidence obtained as a result of plaintiff RTC's unconstitutional search and seizure of defendants' materials, because all seized materials were to remain in the custody of RTC's counsel, and neither disclosure to or review by third parties, including Bridge Publications, was permitted. 23. Plaintiffs are barred from introducing any evidence resulting from the search and seizure of defendants' property other than the Advanced Technology materials because plaintiff RTC was not authorized to search or identify materials in computer media beyond the limited list of documents identified in Exhibit A to the original Complaint, and plaintiff Bridge Publications was not permitted to participate in any search at all. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Verified Complaint of the plaintiff, defendants pray the Court for entry of judgment for defendants and against plaintiff on plaintiff's Verified Complaint, dismissing the Verified Complaint and awarding defendants the costs of defending this action, including reasonable attorney fees. COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Defendants F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., Lawrence Wollersheim and Larry Penny, through their counsel, counterclaim pursuant to Rule 57 F.R.C.P. as follows: - 10 - [page 11] 1. Defendants operate a library and archive which contains information about mind control organizations, including the Church of Scientology. Defendants actively participate in the public debate regarding the public controversy about the Church of Scientology. 2. The Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, C.R.S. section 7-74 101, et seq., ("CUTSA"), prohibits misappropriation of trade secrets. 3. Plaintiff, Religious Technology Center, claims to have trade secrets and further claims that defendants have misappropriated or threatened to misappropriate trade secrets belonging to RTC in violation of CUTSA as part of defendants operation of their library and archive and participation in the public debate regarding the public controversy. 4. Defendants wish to continue to operate the library and archive and participation in debate regarding the Church of Scientology without risk of violating any rules prohibiting misappropriation of trade secrets, but cannot do so without this risk without a determination that RTC has no trade secrets or a full and complete determination of which of RTC's trade secrets are valid in the nature and scope of such trade secrets. In particular, throughout this litigation, RTC has changed its position as to the nature and content of its trade secrets and defendants are left without guidance as to what materials upon which they may comment. - 11 - [page 12] RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 57, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants pray that this Court issue a declaratory judgment in favor of defendants and against RTC as follows: 1. That the defendant has in its possession no trade secrets of the plaintiff which are protected under CUTSA, common law, or otherwise. 2. That if this court determines that plaintiff has one or more trade secrets protectable under CUTSA, the common law, or otherwise, that this Court make a full and final determination on each such claim to trade secrets sufficient to provide a clear and detailed determination of the nature and scope of these trade secrets and sufficient to provide clear guidance to defendants about the scope of public comment which they might make about this important public controversy. 3. That the Court award defendants the cost of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. JURY DEMAND Defendants demand a trial by jury on all issues. DATED this ____ day of October, 1995. - 12 - --- William Bardwell wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu

---

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