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
ÿ