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   Judge Kane specifically stated in his latest order that the unpublished 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....)

ÿÿ