FC: Politech members reply to Scientology's copyright paper

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 21:50:13 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: BusinessWeek frets, ponders, worries about Dark Side of Net"

    Previous Politech message:
    
    "Scientology says it's threatened by 'unadulterated cyber- terrorism'"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03917.html
    
    And, showing that in seven years little has changed, here's an article I 
    wrote in 1995:
    http://www.eff.org/ftp/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/focus.scientology.and.cmu.1095.article
    
    It begins: "A flamewar raging on the Internet over the Church of 
    Scientology's attempts to halt the distribution of its bizarre secret 
    scriptures has spread..."
    
    -Declan
    
    ---
    
    From: Dave_Touretzkyat_private
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: latest Scientology snow job
    Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:27:34 -0400
    
    Declan,
    
    I imagine your readers have found much amusement deconstructing the
    execrable nonsense the Church of Scientology lobbed into your mailbox
    under the guise of a "position paper" on copyright.  After fumbling
    the facts on the Google/DMCA debacle, this pile of PR fluff veers off
    into irrelevant, melodramatic hand-wringing about "haters" and violent
    lunatics -- at least two of whom were ex-Scientologists, by the way.
    What is this completely unsubtle attempt at emotional manipulation
    doing in a position paper on copyright and the DMCA, anyway?
    
    To help set the record straight on Scientology's copyright thuggery,
    here is one of the very first lies in Ms. Hight's document.  She
    writes that "An author has the right to determine whether his words
    will be published, by whom and to what extent."  Wrong.  An author
    does not have absolute control over the rights of another to quote his
    work.  The "fair use" provision of US copyright law, as set forth in
    17 USC 107, lists a number of contexts in which this may be done, such
    as for purposes of comment or criticism, without the author's
    permission.  The doctrine of fair use is backed by extensive case law,
    as you well know.  But you will never hear a Church of Scientology
    spokesperson use the phrase "fair use", except perhaps to deny that
    such a thing could ever apply to THEIR material.
    
    If you look at the specific pages from www.xenu.net that Google was
    asked to delist from its search engine (see the chart at
    http://images.chillingeffects.org/notices/232-xenu_chart.html) you
    will find this page listed as item number 63:
    
       http://www.xenu.net/archive/disk/OTIII/index.htm
    
    This is a mirror of a web page of MINE, at Carnegie Mellon.  You can
    find the original here:
    
       http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII
    
    I am the author of this page. It contains fair use quotations from a
    Scientology document known as OT III, in which the story of Xenu the
    evil space alien is told.  (This is Scientology's biggest spiritual
    secret; their "wall of fire".)  It also contains a scan of the first
    page of the actual OT III document in L. Ron Hubbard's own
    handwriting.  The original is 20 pages long, so I'm quoting only 5% of
    it.  And according to the courtroom testimony of Scientology official
    Warren McShane, under oath, this first page does not even contain any
    of the really secret stuff!  (McShane's testimony is quoted on my web
    page.)
    
    When Scientology complained to my university about this web page, they
    were told that the document was considered "fair use", and that it
    would not be removed.  Scientology took no further action -- because
    they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.
    
    Yet several years later, the same document shows up in a DMCA
    complaint to Google, alleging a copyright violation by xenu.net.
    Scientology had made no attempt to delist my own copy of the page from
    Google.  It would be pointless, since I'd immediately file a
    counter-notification if they did.  But Andreas Heldal-Lund, the
    proprietor of xenu.net, has no wish to subject himself to the
    jurisdiction of US courts, so he cannot counternotify.
    
    Items 64-86 in that same list of "infringements" are various versions
    of an anti-Scientology leaflet that includes just a *portion* of the
    first page of OT III.  Again, this is clearly fair use.
    
    What's going on here?  Why would an organization that claims to have
    put up 140,000 web pages' worth of information about itself object to
    someone reproducing half a page of a 20 page document?  You know the
    answer: Scientology doesn't want people talking about Xenu.  It
    reveals the organization as a nutty UFO cult.  It lets the great
    unwashed in on what John Travolta and Tom Cruise are really up to when
    they visit the Scientology Celebrity Center in Los Angeles: they're
    communing with their space alien ghosts, through a Scientology process
    called "auditing".  Such disclosures are bad for business.  Hence they
    must be suppressed by any means available.
    
    Remember, this is the same cult that once sued the Washington Post for
    quoting a mere 46 words from their secret scripture!  The judge in
    that case, Leonie M. Brinkema, wrote that
    
       ... the Court finds that the motivation of plaintiff in filing this
       lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible.  Although the RTC brought
       the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and
       trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation
       prevailed--the stifling of crticism and dissent of the religious
       practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents.
    
    See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/legal/brinkema-washpost.txt for
    the full text of the judge's decision.  Judge Brinkema awarded legal
    fees to the Post, and for good measure, in a subsequent opinion
    (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma) she retold the Xenu story in
    her own words -- causing Scientology to try, unsuccessfully, to get
    the opinion itself sealed!
    
    For another example of Scientology making legal threats against me
    personally to try to prevent revelation of their "spiritual trade
    secrets", see here:
       http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/legal/milgrim-analysis.html
    
    If the Church of Scientology wants to have a debate about copyright
    issues and the Internet, let them start by explaining what they think
    "fair use" means, and why it doesn't apply to them.
    
    -- Dave Touretzky
    
    ---
    
    Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:08:52 +0200 (MET DST)
    From: Paul Wouters <paulat_private>
    Reply-To: Paul Wouters <paulat_private>
    To: politechat_private, Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>,
        <mediarelationsdirat_private>
    Subject: Re: [declanat_private: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by
      "unadulterated cyber-terrorism"]
    
    Hi,
    
    I'm Paul Wouters, co-founder of Xtended Internet, the ISP that is currently
    hosting http://www.xenu.net/ and has been threatened, called to court, faxed,
    lied to, got its suppliers lied to, and was pushed into either violating its
    customers freedom of speech or get completely cut off the net. For a more
    elaborate story on this, please see:
    
    http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/PriorityTelecom-Xenu.html
    
    I have some comments and questions for Linda. (I'm not on politech, please
    CC any responses to me as well.
    
     >  CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL STATEMENT
     >   REGARDING COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS AND GOOGLE
    
     >      Scientology churches have always supported the Internet.  The Church
     > uses the Internet in its dissemination of the Scientology
     > religion to the people of the world.
    
    Sadly though, this attitude of "support" happened only after The Internet
    proved the first (and only) resistant medium for voicing critical opinions
    about Scientology. Please remember that it was Scientology who tried to
    cancel alt.religion.scientology. Please remember that Scientology members
    tried to spam the group into oblivion. Please remember that up to this day,
    cancellations of articles is still exercised regularly into wiping out all
    "resistance" to Scientology. This is not limited to battling (illegal or not)
    copyright violations (illegally or not).
    
     >  We recognize the Internet as a
     > brilliant technological advance in the field of communication; its
     > benefits far outdistance any down sides.
    
    I wish that you (or at least your Organisation) really believed this. If
    they truly believed this, they would never try to force ISP's to break
    national (and international) law, as Scientology has done in the past.
    Unfortunately, the above statement is just a meaningless credo of your
    organisation.
    
     > The latter are not inherent in
     > the Internet but are the result of abusive or unlawful misuse of the
     > Internet by particular individuals.
    
    Your church (or some members at least) have an at least equal reputation
    of performing illegal acts against its opponents. So we can leave individuals
    breaking the law out of this discussion which is the real interest here,
    namely the position of independents ISP's in a conflict of third parties,
    and their responsibilities and obligations.
    
     >      The Church has established a significant multimedia Internet presence
     > since its launch in 1996 of one of the largest and most
     > technically advanced web sites.
    
    That seems like unfounded boasting. Unless you mean the religious scriptures
    of "Advanced Technology" (aka the notorious/famous OT works and others), I do
    not believe the Scientology web presence has any innovating, outstanding or
    distinguished technical merits.
    As has been shown at: http://www.operatingthetan.com/google/ this "largest"
    cluster of "web sites" are just part of a big linking scheme. Members of
    your church are encouraged to use special "kits" that whips up a "web site"
    in a few minutes. But in the end, it's just cloning the same content 
    everywhere.
    In fact, Scientology's fear of uncontrolled information about them has
    resulted in one major achievement that is indeed unheard of. If one starts a
    web harvester on a Scientology, and one instructs the spider to download 
    each and
    every link it encounters, the spider actually finishes downloading, instead of
    endlessly trying to retrieve the whole internet. Obviously, information 
    Scientology
    links to, is strictly mandated and under full control and censorship of the
    organisation. The "largest and most technically advanced web sites" is in fact
    a big farce, a blown up bubble waiting to burst. The fight over Google's 
    listing
    of www.xenu.net, a critics site, demonstrated this. But a diagram says more 
    then
    a thousand words:
    
    http://www.operatingthetan.com/google/googdmozmore.jpg
    
    
     > Our sites comprise more than 140,000 individual pages of material
    
    generated by a special website kit builder. Create instant websites positively
    and approved by Scientology. Just add your name.
    
     >      The potential of the Internet to link individuals from all corners of
     > the world and unify diverse cultures and nationalities makes it a
     > priceless resource for improving understanding among peoples.
    
    You are suggesting that people "freely link". Your members don't freely link,
    or else one member, somewhere, even if only once, would actually link to
    some non-scientology approved side (and the web harvester would spend an
    eternity downloading the whole internet). Your opponents who link to
    materials, even if done legally, in accordance with national (eg Dutch and/or
    US) and international law (eg Bern convention based laws) get either
    sued, sued again, or get their ISP severely threatened (or dragged to court)
    
    The internet has been the one and only medium that has kept Scientology
    criticism alive. For the first time ever, people have been able to combine
    knowledge and publish without (high) costs.
    If you would truly want to "unify diverse cultures" and "improve understanding
    among peoples" over the Internet, then you wouldn't want to sue (or harass)
    every single critic. If you truly believe that people can have different
    opinions, then please point out one single web page on the Internet that
    speaks out against your religion, and which you haven't tried to silence. That,
    and only that, would convince me that you indeed see the "potential of the 
    Internet".
    (And I'm not even asking you to link to this criticism site!)
    
     >      The freedom provided by the Internet is open to abuse, as the
     > experience of the last decade has shown.
    
    Technology has no opinion, only uses.
    
     > Unless certain rules are applied on the Internet, our desired global 
    freedom
     > to communicate and exchange information will be corrupted by 
    cyber-terrorism
     > that often masquerades as free-speech activism.
    
    There should be no "certain rules" that need applying to a new technology, such
    as the internet, that have no special bearing on new issues and possible 
    conflicts
    of such a new technology. There were enough laws for all the conflicts 
    surrounding
    issues such as copyright violations, fair use, publishing, libel, terrorist 
    organisations,
    discrimination, telecommunications (common carrier principle) and even 
    about abusing
    the law as a tool (SLAPP). From a legal point of view, the only thing the 
    Internet
    can be said to have done, is to make the above mentioned possible (ab)uses 
    faster.
    The DMCA tried to fix this problem, but sadly introduced more problems then it
    fixed. It has degraded into a tool to use against legitimate users and ISP's.
    
     > Thus, limitless "tolerance" of abuse
     > will inevitably bring on over-regulation if a few dishonest
     > individuals are allowed to flout the law and corrupt this communication
     > medium for everyone.  In any event, those who were victimized or saw
     > their rights violated will sooner or later rise to defend themselves and
     > lawfully restore their interests.
    
    If only that was the complete picture. Unfortunately, some of those who were
    "victimized or saw their rights violated" have no money to fight against a
    big money machine such as Scientology, which can afford sue someone into
    oblivion. They have even trademarked the term for this, "Dead Agenting", and
    informed one of my clients (and my former upstream provider) that mentioning
    "fair gaming" is infringing on their rights.
    
    To quote you, "Thus, limitless 'tolerance' of abuse OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
    will inevitably bring on massive violations of normal copyright law if
    a few dishonest corporations/religions are allowed to BUY the law and corrupt
    this legal framework against everyone.
    
     >      1.  Violations of the Church's intellectual property rights
    
    As long as your church purposefully keeps misrepresents these alleged 
    violations,
    hardly anyone will take these allegations seriously. And it's not that some
    things are so incredibly difficult to understand. Why are Scientology lawyers
    continuously trying to "proof" that non-Us based ISP's and individuals are
    violating "Federal law"? Why is Scientology continuously claiming the ownership
    of certain texts or photos by "proving" it was published in one of their 
    magazines?
    Don't they know federal from national and international law? Don't they know
    publishing something doesn't mean a thing as to who owns the copyrighted?
    Yes of course they do. Your lawyers willfully misrepresent the entire situation
    by issuing heavy duty letters to anyone they can find. Sadly, this bullying
    practice has been rather effective.
    
     >      2.  Hate speech that advocates violence against the Church or its
     >      members
    
    Pots, kettles, black? I'd say http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/ is
    one of YOUR hate speech sites. In fact, if that site was really trying to be
    so objective, why did it never publish my response to their "Corporate Appeal"
    page:
    
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/appeal.html
    
    I've submitted a response numerous times, but no one ever bothered to reply.
    not even to tell me why they didn't remove their "hate speech request" 
    towards our
    company, nor publish my "corporate defense".
    
    
     >      While these are separate issues, they do have one notable factor in
     > common: neither one involves ~protected~ free speech.  How ironic,
     > therefore, that more often than not, when a Scientology church moves to
     > remedy such a wrong, these unlawful infringements are immediately
     > redefined as "free speech" issues.
    
    Just as you just redefined "fair use" to "violations intellectual property 
    rights"
    Again, I find it extremely unlikely that every Scientology critic is violating
    the law. Please point out one side that you've encountered that was negatively
    of Scientology, quoted your church in a legally "fair way", which even though
    you didn't like the content, didn't find illegal. Please. Just one site on
    your lawyers list of authors that "legally criticized" Scientology.
    
    
     > The determination to protect copyrighted works from unlawful
     > copyright violation has nothing to do with whether the infringing work is
     > critical or laudatory of Scientology.
    
    There are exceptions of course, as the recent changes of a government's policy
    has made clear. Germany finds the religious believes (in particular the
    parts where they believe the Scientology religion can and should do anything
    in its power (legally or not) to overthrow the current governments and 
    religions
    in favour of a complete Scientology domination, and that anything is allowed,
    even breaking the laws of the government they would work for) too dangerous to
    allow your members inside the government. Indeed, this part, if true (and which
    the German government thinks is true) would redefine your "religion" into
    nothing more then a terrorist organisation.
    
     >      The same holds true for the second phenomenon: hate speech that
     > advocates violence.
    
    If you would only sue the users who advocate such hate speech, instead of
    the providers, then I might believe this is indeed your true goal.
    Unfortunately, I've personally experienced this is not the case. Your
    church has justified all means for its goal, again like a terrorist
    organisation. Our company has been called to court, and had its US based
    supplier terminate our contract "without reason, but nothing to do with
    Scientology" while our customers, known with full name and address by
    your church, has not even bothered to sue them. Why? I have clearly shown
    the pattern by now. Scientology is not untested in free speech. Not
    from its members nor from its critics. Scientology strives for a complete
    Totalitarian entity that is state, religion and corporation blended into
    one. And just like all totalitarian (wannabe) regimes, they are doomed.
    
     >       Threatening speech or expressions calculated to incite hate enjoy no
     > protection under the Constitution.
    
    I agree. I do not agree that as an ISP, we should be the judge of what
    is hate speech or not. We, as an ISP, are not capable of such judgments.
    The DMCA was supposed to fix this. A party who wanted some content removed
    could send a DMCA notice to the ISP, which would then temporarily censor
    the questionable material, creating a time-window for a normal lawsuit to
    resolve the issue. The resulting ruling could then simply be applied by
    the ISP, who would have then stayed neutral throughout the entire conflict.
    
    Unfortunately, practice differs from theory. US based ISP's thought they
    would be better of putting a 'catch all' clause in all their contracts,
    giving them supreme power over the legal system. "We can immediately cut
    you off, without reason, in our sole discretion" is a clause that's in
    every contract I've seen so far. Over and over again, have I explained
    that the ISP is better of not having the choice, and the responsibility
    that comes with it. It's far better to have an official policy of "we are
    not capable of ruling in your conflict, bring us a court ruling, so we can
    act".
    
    So first individuals were cut. Now a few ISP's have been cut. And those
    ISP's are moving up the food chain, now that telecommunication prices are
    falling dramatically in the post dot.com era. There is no upstream ISP to
    cut anymore, since even the small ISP is now at least peering nationally
    with all other ISP's. The RIAA/MPAA has recently sued the Tier-1 ISP's,
    the biggest of the backbone ISP's. If the music lobbying industry wins,
    we're in for some great surprises. Massive censorship is technically next
    to impossible and too expensive to be feasible. There will either many
    ISP's (partially) cut off the net, or the big Tier-1's, already in
    massive financial problems to begin with, will die out. If the latter
    happens, the backbone will scatter into many baby ISP's. Suing will
    become more difficult. The result will backfire.
    
     > Robust critical speech should
     > always be sheltered by the First Amendment, as long is it does not trample
     > the boundaries created by law and jurisprudence in an effort to
     > protect the people from improper verbal abuse and its adverse consequences.
    
    I already pointed out that ANY criticism against your church is always labeled
    by you as "improper". Please show me a side with "Robust critical speech"
    against your church.
    
     >      The Church's own creed states that "all men have inalienable rights
     > to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and
     > to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."
    
    The time, money and effort I've spend as an ISP to try and stay a neutral
    common carrier, have most definitely not been honoured by this Credo of your
    church.
    
     >      Enshrined in the United States Constitution, and preceding the First
     > Amendment,
    
    [ ... ]
    
     > The Constitution authorized Congress
    
    [ ... ]
    
     >      The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    
    [ ... ]
    
    
    Please. There is a world outside the United States as well.
    
     >      When it became obvious during the last decade that copyright owners'
     > determination was being tested
    
    When the printing press was invented this was the case. When the Xerox machine
    was invented this was the case. When the copier and printer was invented this
    was the case. Now, when the hyperlink has been invented, this is the case.
    There is nothing new, except for the speed of the possible violations. 
    Hopefully,
    a fixed version of your DMCA law, and a fixed version of the EUCD (The European
    version) will one day address these issues correctly.
    
     > landmark lawsuit brought by two Scientology-affiliated organizations,
     > the US District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with
     > their contention that ISPs may be liable for contributory copyright
     > infringement once they are made aware that infringements are maintained on
     > their systems.
    
    This is exactly what I've been saying here as well. However, note that we
    differ on the "once they are made aware that infringements are maintained"
    part. Your church sending me hundred's of pages of faxes of mostly masked
    apparently copyrighted texts does not constitute "made aware". In fact,
    when we faced your Church with our defenses over time, and showed you
    that we couldn't act on your believes and your (biased) interpretation of
    law your church has always chosen to drop the issue with us instead of
    suing our customer and present us with a ruling we could act upon.
    Instead, your church always went for our suppliers. Sadly, it actually
    worked once, and not only one of our customers freedom got infringed,
    but ALL of my customers freedom, including our own, and my personal
    freedom got infringed upon. And what worries me most is not your
    church being trigger happy with lawsuits and being successful. My
    biggest worry is that our company got censored, not for a belief, not for
    a religion, not for a valid legal reason. But for profit.
    
    
     >      This notice-and-takedown procedure became an important aspect of the
     > Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  It provides the copyright owner
     > with a remedy and absolves ISPs from responsibility for content and
     > liability if they remove infringing materials, while depriving the
     > violator of the means to perpetrate his unlawful activity.
    
    It has also brought, as can be seen in the Scientology-Google case, a
    safe heaven for censoring any non-US citizen by putting down a DMCA
    notice on a US based ISP/company. As is common with the US, they try
    to dictate law to other countries, outside international treaties. So
    to counter a DMCA notice, you have to agree to submit to US law, even
    if the alleged offense itself is happening in a non-US country, and is
    not even a crime in that non-US country, and worst of all, is not even
    a crime in the US. Simply the fact of needing to come to the US to
    "surrender" under US law violates a non-US' citizens rights. It reduced
    the DMCA to a tool of the right and powerful. It reduced the freedom of
    US based ISP's and through that, it reduced the freedom of its citizens.
    
     > IV. GOOGLE CHILLS
     >
     >      In March 2002, acting according to the provisions of the Digital
     > Millennium Copyright Act, the Church asked Google to remove their links
     > to certain specific copyright infringements.
    
    The DMCA which you seem so fond of EXCLUDES using the DMCA on "search engines".
    Google should have dismissed your DMCA notice, and instead you should have
    served that notice to the ISP hosting the material in question. However, that
    company was our company, and is located in the Netherlands, and is (as long
    as the EUCD has not been accepted, approved and ratified, which in its
    current state it should never be) not violating any applicable Dutch or
    international law.
    
     >      However, this time the often unpredictable currents of the Internet
     > pushed Google out of the routine and into a storm of protest.  Taken
     > aback by this reaction, Google rapidly moved to put the Church's cease and
     > desist letters up on a public website.  If the intent of this action
     > was to appear "politically correct" or to chill the Church's dedication to
     > defend the copyrighted works of the Scientology religion, no adverse
     > affect has been created.
    
    So why are you mentioning this here? Of course something was achieved by
    mirroring all of their DMCA notices on a public website. It means you
    can search for the link of the questioned and censored and/or alleged
    documents WITHOUT their search engine. It puts you back to where you
    should legally go. In the US, that means sending a DMCA notice to an
    ISP, and not a search engine. For outside the US this mostly means
    suing the actual user and bringing the ruling to the ISP in question,
    provided you win your case. And as our defense on the xenu.net case
    (and your church's unwillingness to sue the user or his ISP) showed,
    you have no clearcut case at all, and according to people with more
    legal knowledge on these matters, not much of a chance to win.
    
     >      We are scarcely alone in utilizing the DMCA to protect our
     > intellectual properties.  Considering that hundreds of cease and desist
     > letters are generated by copyright owners every day, it is oddly
     > disproportionate that so much attention has been focused on the handful
     > sent out by Scientology churches.
    
    It's a lot more then a handful. It's also filled with inaccuracies, falsehoods,
    dubious claims, and intensionally misleading claims (see the aforementioned
    link on the xenu.net case to get some crystal clear examples of this).
    
     >      Record companies have used copyright law to halt the pirating of
     > Digital Video Discs.
    
    And withheld the rights of people to play the music they legally bought on
    their own devices, such as mp3 players, Linux, etc.
    
     >         V. FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH
     >
     >      It has long been an established legal principle that open incitement
     > to violence against another is not protected by the First
     > Amendment, neither on nor off the Internet.
    
    So is your church then committing an offense with "Dead Agenting"? Do remember
    that in your church's last letter to us, they claim copyright on that. This
    makes your church either the same thing it loathes so much, or they hand
    in bogus copyright claims (which is getting pretty damn close to perjury)
    Which of the two is it?
    
     >      If an individual shouted from his rooftop that he was going to throw
     > a bomb through his neighbor's window, no one would accuse the
     > intended victim of attempting to stifle free speech when he called the
     > police.
    
    If an individual shouted from the pub, when drinking his 10th pint of beer
    that evening, that he was going to throw a bomb through his neighbor's window,
    no one would him seriously. Keith Henson joked about a "Cruise Missile",
    obviously referencing your member Tom Cruise in a joke on an internet 
    newsgroup.
    Your church "called the police". As a result, this American has now been 
    granted
    political asylum in Canada. I would say that America should demolish their
    Statue of Liberty, as it has clearly been replaced by the God of Profit, but I
    fear that such a joke might now be called Terrorism by you.
    
     >      It has been necessary to take legal action on several occasions due
     > to threats and actual violence against our churches.  Hate speech and
     > extremist propaganda on the Internet have repeatedly driven unstable
     > individuals to commit felonious acts against Church members and Church
     > property, as in these examples:
    
    [ 6 examples without any context quoted, making verification of these
       claims impossible ]
    
    For similar statements of violence by your church see:
    
    http://www.scientology-lies.com/investigation.html
    
      This page provides links to reports alleging that Scientology is breaking 
    the law. The links are grouped by type of allegation:
    
    false imprisonment 25 reports 1968 - 1996
    assault 14 reports 1978 - 1998
    practicing medicine without a license 5 reports 1975 - 1995
    threats 5 reports 1978 - 1995
    fraud 18 reports 1975 - 1998
    extortion 9 reports 1978 - 1996
    invasion of privacy 11 reports 1975 - 1994
    child neglect 8 reports 1975 - 1991
    coerced abortions 2 reports covering several cases 1975 - 1993
    weapons violations 1 report 1991
    conspiracy to murder 2 reports dates unknown but probably 1970s
    commission of criminal acts 2 reports one from 1987
    interference with the US Mail 2 reports one from 1978
    slander, libel, and defamation 2 reports
    dates unknown, one from the 80s falsifying information or conditions to 
    deceive inspectors
       2 reports 1978 and 1982
    obstruction of justice 2 reports 1989 and late 1990's
    violation of labor laws 11 reports 1973 - 1996
    
    And of course the most prominent violation is the murder of Lisa McPherson, 
    see:
    http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/
    
    For a bigger list of alleged murders/deaths see:
    
    http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/deaths/scientology-deaths.html
    
     >      If these acts are carried out against U.S.  citizens by Al Qaeda, it
     > is called terrorism.
    
    The same applies to your church and the list and url's I just mentioned.
    
     >      Ultimately, the only guarantee of safeguarding the Internet's
     > potential resides with all who use it.
    
    The Internet is just a tool for communication. Ultimately, the only guarantee
    of safeguarding our communication resides with all who use it, and those who
    prevent its abuse.
    
     >  We share the responsibility of
     > ensuring that abuses by a largely lawless minority are not permitted to
     > burden all of us with over regulation.
    
    We share the responsibility of ensuring that abuses by large corporations
    are not permitted to suppress the fundamental freedom of individuals.
    
     >  We submit that had it not been
     > for a few lawless individuals, online copyright regulation would not even
     > have been necessary; ample copyright law already existed.
    
    I'd say ample copyright law already existed, and has nothing to do with a
    few lawless individuals.
    
     > It is up
     > to the law-abiding majority to ensure the Internet remains truly free.
    
    It's up to the law to make sure that barratry and other misuses of the law
    by rich corporations and "religions" are stopped.
    
    Paul Wouters
    Xtended Internet
    
    ---
    
    Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:02:55 -0500
    From: scott <scottat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    CC: dstat_private, kady <kadyat_private>
    Subject: Response to Linda Simmons Scientology Internet position paper 
    (updated)
    
    
    Hello Declan,
    
    This email is in response to Church of Scientology Media Relations Director 
    Linda Simmons Hight's email to you seen here:
    
    http://politechbot.com/p-03917.html
    
    I belive Dave Touretzky replied to some of the other sections, but we've 
    chosen to address a single section, namely, the  proviced examples of 
    'internet hate speech'.
    
    In her email she provides numerous examples of how 'hate speech on the 
    internet' has driven 'unstable individuals' to commmit felonies against the 
    church. Predictably, however, the examples she cites contain no evidence 
    whatsoever that 'hate speech on the internet' (or for that matter even 
    simply 'hate speech') was a responsible motivator for the acts she lists.
    
    In only two examples is the internet even mentioned - in one example, the 
    facts are famously disputed and the other is yet another vague and 
    unverifiable accusation. And even more telling and typical is the fact that 
    at least two of the acts she lists were committed by *Scientologists*.
    
    We dissect the Church of Scientology's examples below in more detail.
    
    
    ###
    
    It has been necessary to take legal action on several occasions due to 
    threats and actual violence against our churches. Hate speech and extremist 
    propaganda on the Internet have repeatedly driven unstable individuals to 
    commit felonious acts against Church members and Church property, as in 
    these examples:
    
    
    (1) A Scientology Church was fire-bombed twice with a dozen molotov 
    cocktails doing extensive damage to the front of the church.
    
    Response:
    There was a recent case of vandalism of a Palm Beach Church of Scientology 
    that seems to match this deliberately vague description. Although it is not 
    clear that this was, in fact, the incident described in the piece, if this 
    is the incident in question, it is, at present, still an open 
    investigation. While the Church of Scientology has made every effort to 
    steer the police in the direction of some local critics, there is no 
    evidence whatsoever that the vandalism was anything more than unrelated 
    youthful hijinks, entirely divorced from anything that might occur on the 
    Internet and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, but more likely 
    a craven attempt to exploit the still prevelant skittishness towards 
    terrorism that is part of the American psyche.
    
    
    (2) A staff member was stalked and shot at.
    
    Response:
    This is impossible to verify without more information, such as the date and 
    location that the alleged incident took place. The contention that this 
    attack, if it did, indeed, occur as described, was in any way related to 
    "hate speech" on the Internet is entirely without foundation, and given the 
    propensity that the Church has already demonstrated to attempt to exploit 
    genuine tragedy in an effort to attack its perceived enemies, it cannot be 
    given much credence.
    
    
    (3) A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member 
    whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died. The woman 
    is now paralyzed. He then set fire to the building and took another female 
    staff member hostage.
    
    Response:
    What is disingenuously omitted from this example is that the shooter in 
    question was a Scientologist. From a Portland Oregonian article 
    (a06at_private&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=52hrm8$a06at_private&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain) 
    at the time:
    
    "He came form Kenya in 1979 to 'accomplish something in America,' he said, 
    his hopes fueled by high expectations from friends and family. But Jairus 
    Godeka felt his dream fade to 'gloom and doom,' after he was introduced to 
    the Church of Scientology in 1980, he told police.
    
    [...]
    
    "They said he and his estranged wife, Christina, met while he was a 
    student. The two married in Vancouver and lived there for three or four 
    months before moving to Portland. About five years into the marriage, they 
    said, Godeka found Scientology. A month after he did, the in-laws said, 
    Godeka sold his belongings, including a stereo the couple owned, and left 
    his wife.
    
    "'The Church of Scientology told him he had to cleanse or purify himself 
    and to leave her,' Christina's mother said. 'He was fine until he got 
    involved with that church.'
    
    Using Linda's reasoning, the rest of the world is responsible for 
    protecting Scientology from the people that they themselves drive insane.
    Another article on the incident can be found here: 
    oe1at_private-net.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=52f05i$oe1at_private-net.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
    
    
    (4) Individuals became inflamed by venom spewed online and then sent out 
    death threats.
    
    Response:
    Again, this is a vague claim, and one that is, one suspects, deliberately 
    worded to be nearly impossible to disprove. However, it must be said that 
    the notion that "venom spewed online" can "inflame" otherwise stable, 
    well-adjusted and peaceful individuals to commit acts of violence and 
    aggression is one that does not correspond with general societal theories 
    on responsibility, legal or moral. To put it more simply, if someone reads 
    a webpage on environmental destruction, and takes this as an impetus to go 
    out and shoot employees of the corporation responsible for said 
    destruction, this is a tragedy that, while regrettable, cannot be "blamed" 
    simply on the mere availability of critical information online. There were 
    unstable individuals who resorted to violence before there was an Internet, 
    and it is sophistry to blame the medium, or, indeed, its users, for the 
    actions of any and all individuals who make use of it.
    
    
    (5) An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating 
    Scientologists through the Internet. He then fled the country to avoid 
    sentencing.
    
    Response:
    The individual in this case, Keith Henson, has been profiled at length both 
    on this list, and by mainstream media outlets. A page detailing exactly 
    what occured in his case can be found at www.operatingthetan.net. As is 
    extensively discussed on this website, which provides up to date 
    information on Henson's situation, the "threats" in question were ambiguous 
    at best, and in no way should have resulted in his conviction. Henson has 
    also never been found to have committed any violent act against any 
    individual, Scientologist or otherwise. In fact, the Church of Scientology 
    has engaged in considerable direct harassment of both Mr. Henson and his 
    family both before, during and after the incident that led to his flight to 
    Canada.
    
    
    (6) Police intercepted a man with explosives in his van, who, it was 
    discovered by the officers, was enroute to assassinate the president of a 
    Church of Scientology.
    
    Response:
    This incident, which occured in Bakersville, California in 1996, in fact 
    involved yet another disgruntled former Scientologist, Jim Enteman, who had 
    been a fulltime staff member at the Washington DC Church of Scientology 
    during previous years. In June 1996, Enteman pleaded guilty to three 
    felonies related to both the explosive material in the van and a subsequent 
    standoff with police that occured after Enteman was stopped by police.
    
    While it was never made clear exactly why Mr. Enteman, a resident of 
    Oregon, was driven to take such potentially violent action against his 
    former church, it was never implied, by either the prosecution or the 
    defence in the case, that it had anything to do with outside influence. In 
    fact, in a story that appeared in the Bakersfield Californian quoted a 
    former girlfriend of Mr. Enteman, who said that Enteman "felt that (church 
    members) were involved in the programming and deprogramming of his mind." 
    It would appear that in this case, the impetus that led to Mr. Enteman's 
    attempted action was internal to his relationship with the Church, and in 
    no way related to outside criticism of Scientology, whether on the Internet 
    or anywhere else.
    
    
    (7) A man constructed a mail bomb and hid it in one of our churches. It was 
    detected and defused before it went off.
    
    Response:
    Although there are few identifying details given here, an incident that 
    meets the description was reported by Reuters News Agency in March, 1997. 
    According to the news report, which was based on French 'police sources,' a 
    "member of the Church of Scientology found and defused a powerful bomb 
    Friday in a church in the western town of Angers." No one was ever arrested 
    for this crime, and no group or individual ever claimed responsibility. It 
    is, clearly, a leap of logic for the author of this list to suggest that 
    this in any way implicates anyone engaged in online criticism.
    
    As can be seen seen through even a cursory analysis of these claims of 
    "cyberterrorism", in most incidents involving violent acts towards 
    Scientologists or Church property, the perpetrator is, in fact, far more 
    likely to be a disgruntled Scientologist with a personal grudge than an 
    individual somehow inspired to violence solely by the existence of online 
    criticism.
    
    In fact, you could even argue that disgruntled ex-scns are *less* likely to 
    become unstable and violent if there is a critical community in which they 
    can participate because it channels that resentment and hostility into 
    positive efforts. Also, if you look at the timeline, the most violent 
    incidents occured relatively long ago by netstandards - 1996 & 1997 - which 
    does not support the assertion that online forums for scientology criticism 
    provoke such incidents.
    
    ####
    
    
    thanks..
    
    Scott Pilutik and Kady O'Malley (mostly Kady O'Malley in this case ;)
    
    ---
    
    From: Tim Meehan - OCSARC <timat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated 
    cyber-terrorism"
    Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:36:02 -0400
    Organization: Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis
    
     >      The freedom provided by the Internet is open to abuse, as the
     >experience of the last decade has shown.  Unless certain rules are
     >applied on the Internet, our desired global freedom to communicate and
     >exchange information will be corrupted by cyber-terrorism that often
     >masquerades as free-speech activism.
    
    What a pantload.
    
    I would respond by saying that unless certain rules are applied to the
    tax-exempt status of groups formed by really bad science fiction
    writers intent on parting people from their wallets for nefarious
    purposes, our desired global freedom to communicate and exchange
    information will be corrupted by terroristic cults that often
    masquerade as some kind of "church."
    
    --
    Tim Meehan, Communications Director
    Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis
    timat_private * http://www.ocsarc.org
    
    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:52:20 -0700
    From: Don Marti <dmartiat_private>
    To: Linda Simmons Hight <mediarelationsdirat_private>
    Cc: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated 
    cyber-terrorism"
    
    Dear Ms. Hight,
    
    Following Google's removal of xenu.net from their index, I led
    the Mountain View, California Xenu Independent Study Group in a
    personal visit to Google HQ in Mountain View.  I have a question
    regarding the DMCA statement that you recently submitted to Declan
    McCullagh's Politech mailing list.
    
     >       In March 2002, acting according to the provisions of the Digital
     > Millennium Copyright Act, the Church asked Google to remove their links
     > to certain specific copyright infringements.  Google responded by
     > eliminating the links.  These actions on both sides were routine and
     > carried out pursuant to the DMCA.
    
    This "routine" letter included the URL of the xenu.net home page,
    not just the URLs of excerpts from Scientology documents.
    
    Google promptly admitted that their action in removing the xenu.net
    home page was a mistake.  The home page contains no potentially
    DMCA-actionable material but only a summary of views critical of
    the Church.
    
    See "Google Restores Church Links" at
    http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,51257,00.html
    
    What is the Church of Scientology's current position on this attempt
    to censor the xenu.net home page?  Was this a mistake or a deliberate
    attempt to use the takedown provision of the DMCA to make criticism
    less visible?
    
    (By the way, congratulations are due to your webmaster for taking
    back the number 1 spot in a Google search on "Scientology", which
    xenu.net has held for most of the time since the March censorship
    controversy.)
    
    -- 
    Don Marti
    http://zgp.org/~dmarti                       Help spread accurate information
    dmartiat_private                      about Xenu and the Church of Scientology.
                      <a href="http://xenu.net/">Scientology</a> on your web site.
    
    
    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylorat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by 
    "unadulterated  cyber-terrorism"
    To: declanat_private
    
    
    Two responses to the Scientologists...
    
    First, the abhorent part of the DMCA is the anti-circumvention provisions. The
    notice-and-takedown provisions, while they are easily abused and could
    definitely be improved to prevent this, are nowhere as draconian. So long as a
    user is truly commiting copyright infringement, I don't think there is any
    problem with the law .
    
    Second, is the legally inaccurate characterization of "hate speech". There is,
    in fact, a big distinction between "hate speech" and "incitement to violence".
    In fact "hate speech" IS protected free speech in the US. A famous example of
    this is Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) in which an arrest of a KKK
    leader who advocated illegal acts was struck down. The court held: "Freedoms of
    speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force
    or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or
    producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
    action."
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444
    
    Similarly in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (505 US 377), the Supreme Court struck
    down an arrest for cross burning as facially invalid under the First Amendment.
    http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZO.html . Yet another example
    is the recent Yahoo case where a US judge refused to uphold France's punishment
    for selling Nazi propaganda on Yahoo's auction site.
    
    Linda Hict states that "Hate speech and extremist propaganda on the Internet
    have repeatedly driven unstable individuals to commit felonious acts against
    Church members and Church property." The fact that acts of violence have been
    perpetrated against some of its members, while it does warrent criminal
    prosecution for the perpetrators, does not provide exception to the above
    standards. The KKK is the epitome of "hate speech and extremist propoganda",
    yet their speech has repeatedly been ruled protected, even while racist
    violence has plauged society. The key word in her statement is "driven", which
    implies a Charles Manson like influence over another. I am highly skeptical
    this leader-follower relationship actually exists here. The First Amendment
    cannot tolerate scape-goating critics for the actions of others when there is
    not a personalized intent to incite the attacker's violence.
    
    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:39:15 -0700
    From: Lizard <lizardat_private>
    
    However, if one wishes to prove fraud, one has to be able to quote the 
    fraudulent documents. Scientology is attempting a Catch-22 on its critics:
    
    If you criticize Scientology w/out ny backing from their own 'scriptures', 
    Scientologists will just claim you're "making stuff up".
    If you criticize Scientology by quoting their scriptures, Scientologist 
    claim 'copyright violation'.
    
    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:56:12 -0700
    From: "Da'ud X Mohammed" <webmasterat_private>
    Reply-To: webmasterat_private
    Organization: Oregon Coast News Signal
    
    Hullo Declan,
    
    Re: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated cyber-terrorism"
    
    Perhaps in the Scientology case we're talking a matter of privacy rather 
    than free speech, copyright protection and/or "cyber-terrorism"; just as in 
    the White House making their case FOR war in the name of any "terrorism" 
    you name rather than keeping secret a not-so-secret plan for White 
    House-blessed (U.S.) corporate control of oil (and water) world wide...
    
    Don't cults have a privacy rite, uh, right? Maybe they can't function 
    without privacy and secrecy. See the priveleged uppards insiders (inside 
    the White House) that seem hell-bent on secrecy and making war somewhere in 
    the name of anti-terrorism instead of making peace somewhere, even 
    domestically. (Also see: Portlanders protest Bush policies on cutting down 
    all the trees as a means of preventing forest fires).
    
    Peace is a more complex matter than war. In war all you hafta do is go out 
    and kill a bunch of people and take their control of their oil away from 
    them. In peace you hafta develop real alternatives to dependence on 
    (whoevers') oil in the first place. Human dependence on water is a 
    different matter.
    
    In (so-called) "religious" cults, developing follower dependence on the 
    cult is THE secret. Again, no matter if it's power (control) or money 
    they're after, don't they have the right to privacy? And while (I say) the 
    cult does, (I also say) at taxpayer expense the war mongrels in the White 
    House don't.
    
    For their own secret agenda(s), both Scientology and the White House 
    opportunistically use and abuse what is at the very heart of true terrorism 
    and/or true freedom fighting in order to perpetuate the status quo.
    
    wa-salaam
    
    dxm
    
    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:59:29 -0500
    From: host@cyber-line.com
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    
    Hi Declan,
    
    Well I must say I am TOTALLY confused?
    
    I am assuming the COS is considering itself a religion. So, if they believe 
    in free speech, why are they hiding behind copyright?
    
    If someone wants to make thier case, they would state it and use whatever 
    publication or document as a reference point. That, I think, is a 
    reasonable thing.
    
    It would be no different if somene quoted an article from The New York 
    Times provided they gave due credit. If they were copying and selling their 
    literature for a profit, I could see the COS's point. (Just as much as if 
    the NYT had an issue as well.)
    
    But let me point out again, they are a religion, right?
    
    I guess COS will go down in history as the first COPYRIGHTED religion then.
    
    I mean, I don't see catholics and other religions suing atheists over DMCA 
    issues because they qouted the bible to prove their points.
    
    Nor Jews or Muslins suing over DMCA issues because the Talmut or Koran were 
    qouted or posted on the net.
    
    I think personally the COS needs to get a life. It is either a religion or 
    not. If it is, then it should have to follow the same fair use rules as 
    everyone else. If not, declare yourself a business, renounce your 501c3 
    status, and let the marketplace rule and sue into the stars whoever crosses 
    their paths.
    
    (OOps! I forgot, they do that already don't they?)
    
    Or other groups might have to be allowed to make Jihad every time they are 
    quoted on the net. And if that still stands, maybe Christians can sue Italy 
    for all those unfair attacks from those nasty lions!
    
    
    
    Mick Williams
    Host/Executive Producer
    Mick Williams' Cyber Line
    http://www.cyber-line.com
    
    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:00:45 -0700
    From: "James J. Lippard" <lippardat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated 
    cyber-terrorism"
    
    A few quick comments on the Church of Scientology's position paper.
    
    1.  The Church of Scientology has clearly made some major mistakes in its
    campaign to protect its secrets.  These include:
    
        * Attempting to remove the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup from
          Usenet on January 10, 1995.
        * Raiding the private property of individuals twice in 1995, using 
    copyright
          and trade secret law (RTC v. Netcom and RTC v. Lerma; the Church's 
    Religious
          Technology Center ultimately prevailed in both cases, the former being
          settled out of court).  What I characterize as a mistake here is the 
    excessive
          over-reaction of raids.
        * Sending out legal threats against individuals for quoting two lines from
          the OT7 materials.  These two lines were eventually quoted in the New 
    York
          Times and the Washington Post.  The Washington Post was a defendant in
          the RTC v. Lerma case, but won on all counts.
    
    See
    http://www.discord.org/~lippard/skeptic/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html
    for a contemporary account of these events that was published in
    _Skeptic_ magazine.  The events were also chronicled in Wendy
    M. Grossman's book _net.wars_ (NYU Press, 1997).
    
    The Church of Scientology also used other measures to try to disrupt the
    alt.religion.scientology newsgroup.  These included a plan (attempted,
    with little success) to flood the newsgroup with pro-Scientology postings,
    to flood it with anti-psychiatry postings, and according to ex-Scientologist
    Tory Bezazian, the Church was behind the "sporgings"--mass posts of gibberish
    forged in the names of the regular contributors to the newsgroup, which
    greatly reduced the usability of Usenet archives like DejaNews.
    (See Tony Ortega's story on Tory Bezazian from the Los Angeles New Times
    at http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2001-09-27/feature.html/1/index.html)
    
    2.  Linda Simmons Hight gives a list of threats and attacks on the Church.
    Some of her descriptions leave something to be desired.
    
     >      o A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member
     > whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died.
     > The woman is now paralyzed.  He then set fire to the building and took
     > another female staff member hostage.
    
    This was Jairus C. Godeka of Kenya, who engaged in this assault
    against the Portland office of the Church of Scientology in September
    1996.  Godeka was a disturbed individual who stated that his problems
    began when he started taking Scientology courses--the crazed gunman
    was himself a Scientologist.
    
     >      o An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating
     > Scientologists through the Internet.  He then fled the country to avoid
     > sentencing.
    
    This was Keith Henson--many believe that, in context, the Usenet postings
    which led to his conviction were not threats.  He regularly picketed the
    Church of Scientology's Hemet, CA location.  The specifics may be found
    online at http://www.holysmoke.org/kh/kh.htm
    
    -- 
    Jim Lippard        lippardat_private       http://www.discord.org/
    GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
    
    ---
    
    From: "Joel J. Hanes" <joel554at_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Scientology "threatened"
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:49:15 -0700
    
    
    Ahhh, Scientology.
    
    
        The most litigious organization on the planet.
    
        As an excercise, I invite you (or someone you know
        with Lexis/Nexis access) to look up Scientology's
        legal history in the US -- literally tens of thousands
        of lawsuits over the last 25 years.
    
    
        Allow me to deconstruct for you two of the points
        in Ms. Simmons-Hight's lovely letter.  (You _did_ notice
        that she carefully left out all specifics of names, dates,
        places, etc. that might allow you to independently verify
        her claims, right?)
    
    ---
    
           o A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member
    whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died.
    The woman is now paralyzed.  He then set fire to the building and took
    another female staff member hostage.
    
        [ This would be Jairus Godeka, in, I think, Seattle.
          Godeka was mentally ill, and was at that point a failing member
          of the "Church".  There is no detectable connection between his
          acts and the Internet.  None. ]
    
    
           o An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating
    Scientologists through the Internet.  He then fled the country to avoid
    sentencing.
    
        [ This is Keith Henson, a founding member of the L5 society.
          His "threatening and intimidating Scientologists" consisted
          of first peaceful picketing, then making a joke on the Usenet
          newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, and more peaceful and
          legal picketing.  The conviction was a travesty.  A little
          Googling on the keywords Henson Scientology should be enough
          to acquaint you with the actual specifics of the case.
          EFF's site has some Henson background material.
          It is true that Henson fled to Canada before sentencing.  ]
    
    
    Anyone concerned with copyright law and the Net ought to read a little
    about how Scientology was able to use the pre-DMCA copyright laws to
    sue and harass former high-ranking member Dennis Erlich.
    Defense work by EFF and Morrison-Foerster (before Erlich settled for
    undisclosed damages) left a fine set of legal documents.
      See
    http://www.xenutv.com/legal/erlich.htm
    http://www.eff.org/IP/IP_SLAPP/Scientology_cases/
    
    
    and, of course, you should know that Scientology lies about everything,
    as policy, and is frequently caught at it.
    
    See the Bonnie Woods case in the UK
    http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/woods.html
    
    or the Casey Hill case in Canada
    http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1995/vol2/html/1995scr2_1130.html
    in which Scientology paid the largest libel judgement
    in Canadian history.
    
    
    
    
                                       enjoying your blog
    
    
                                            Joel Hanes
                                            Santa Clara CA
    
    
    
    ------------------
    
    
    
    
    Here's an admittedly one-sided but factual backgrounder on Scientology
    that I wrote some years ago, during the five-year span that I followed
    alt.religion.scientology every day.  The links have rotted, but at one
    time they substantiated every claim made.
    
    
    ---
    
      To the best of my knowledge, every statement in this post is factual.
      If any person, Scientologist, critic, or bystander, can provide
      evidence that any of these statements are false, I will retract and
      change this article before (someday) reposting.
    
    
      Scientology  started out as pseudo-medical quackery, and only
                   incorporated as a "church" to evade regulation
                   by the FDA and taxation by the IRS.
    
                   Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, stated
                   initially that Scientology was _not_ a religion;
                   that it was instead a set of precise scientific
                   techniques discovered through research.
    
                   Only after Hubbard's grandiose claims for medical and
                   psychological benefits were show to be false, and with
                   fraud prosecution by the U.S. Federal government
                   looming, did he reorganize Scientology as a church.
    
    
      Scientology  breaks up families.
    
                   When a Scientologist's family members or friends express
                   concern about the personality changes that are often seen
                   in new members, or about the extreme amounts of money
                   suddenly being "donated" to Scientology, the member's
                   Scientology "case supervisor" often strongly advises
                   "disconnection" from "suppressive" family and friends.
    
                   Disconnection means complete cessation of contact.
    
                   Many parents, brothers, sisters, and ex-spouses tell
                   of spending years, even decades, with no communication
                   whatsoever from a loved one ensnared in Scientology.
    
    
      Scientology  explicitly teaches its representatives to lie.
    
                   Scientology has an official training routine,
                   "TR-L", that is used to teach its public
                   spokespersons to lie convincingly, and without
                   remorse.
    
                   Lying defamation of enemies is standard policy in
                   Scientology, and is termed "dead agenting":
    
                   In 1995, the "Church" of Scientology Canada paid the
                   largest libel judgement in Canadian history,
                   $1.8 million, to the Hon. Casey Hill, because their
                   official spokesmen continued to maliciously "dead-agent"
                   Hill when they knew their claims to be lies.
                      http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/malice.htm
    
                   In 1999, British courts awarded 155,000 pounds
                   to ex-Scientologist Bonnie Woods after she was
                   libeled in a leaflet distributed to her neighbors
                   by a Scientology organization.  Scientology's lawyers
                   were compelled to read in court an apology and
                   acknowlegement that their clients had knowingly
                   and maliciously lied.
                      http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/woods.html
    
                   In 2001, a Berlin court awarded 100,000 Deutschemarks
                   to Bob Minton in a suit brought against the Church of
                   Scientology in Germany and German OSA head Sabina Weber,
                   after Minton was libeled in "Freheit", the German-language
                   version of Scientology's "Freedom" magazine.
    
    
    
    
      Scientology  has several times publicly announced a "religious"
                   crusade to destroy the psychiatric profession, and
                   to remove psychotherapists of all kinds
                   (except Scientology's own "auditors")
                   from "the face of this planet".
    
                   Yet Scientology itself refuses to offer help of any
                   kind to persons suffering from schizophrenia,
                   autism, bipolar disorder, depression, or any other
                   mental or emotional disorder.
    
                   Scientology strongly condemns all medication taken for
                   psychiatric conditions (such as Prozac, Zoloft, Zanax,
                   lithium, Paxil, Ritalin, Wellbutrin, Luvox, Tegretol,
                   Celexa, Lorazepam, Effexor, Serzone, Anafril,
                   Klonopin, Valium, etc.).
                   Through its front-group CCHR, Scientology seeks
                   to make these medications unavailable to anyone.
    
    
      Scientology  maintains dossiers ("PC folders") of potentially
                   damaging admissions confessed by adherents, and uses
                   them as a threat to control members, and to smear
                   ex-members.
    
                   During "auditing", the person being audited ("the PC")
                   is hooked up to a crude lie-detector (the "E-meter"),
                   and is asked a long series of detailed and intensely
                   personal questions about their sex life, illegalities
                   they may have performed, anything they may regret or
                   be ashamed of.
                   All responses are carefully recorded in the PC folder.
    
                   Persons attempting to leave Scientology have been
                   threatened with public disclosure of the contents
                   of their PC folder; ex-members who have made trouble
                   for Scientology have had these threats carried out.
                   http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum/culling.html
    
    
      Scientology  has a secret police.
    
                   The Office of Special Affairs ("OSA") is the current
                   Scientology organization chartered for intelligence,
                   propaganda, and covert operations.
    
                   These covert activities were formerly the job of the
                   Guardian's Office ("GO"); the GO was reorganized into
                   today's OSA after eleven top GO officers were jailed
                   in U.S. federal felony convictions.
                      http://www.entheta.org/entheta/go/go.htm
                      http://members.tripod.com/German_Scn_News
    
    
      Scientology  has a gulag.
    
                   Scientology's paramilitary elite, the "Sea Org",
                   maintains re-education camps, known as the "RPF",
                   at several locations.  The lowest levels of RPF have
                   all the characteristics of a gulag work camp --
                   involuntary confinement at hard labor; psychological
                   manipulation; continual harassment; inadequate
                   food, sleep, and sanitation; gross overcrowding.
                      http://www.scientology-lies.com/imprisonment.html
    
    
      Scientology  pressures some female members to have abortions.
    
                   According to a written policy known as "Flag Order 3905",
                   women joining the Sea Org must make that work their
                   absolute priority, and must not become pregnant.
                   If they do conceive, they are pressured, and have
                   in some cases been coerced, to terminate the pregnancy
                   through abortion.
                      http://www.scientology-lies.com/abortions.policy.html
                      http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/deaths/index.html#csa
                      http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_mt.html
    
    
      Scientology  has repeatedly fostered felonious conspiracies.
    
                   * Operation Snow White
    
                     In 1978-81, eleven high-ranking Scientologists were
                     convicted of felonies, fined, and sentenced to terms
                     in US Federal penitentiaries for their roles in
                     "Operation Snow White", a conspiracy to infiltrate
                     and burglarize U.S. Federal government offices,
                     to steal and destroy government files documenting
                     some of the ugly facts about Scientology.
                       http://www.skeptictank.org/cagmsh.htm
                       http://www.holysmoke.org/grand-jury.htm
    
                     L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology,
                     was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this case.
                       http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/kember.htm
    
                     Faced with overwhelming evidence, the Scientology
                     defendants agreed to stipulate in advance that they
                     had in fact committed a long list of crimes:
                       http://www.wwwaif.net/GO/GOstip/toc.html
    
                     The convicted include Jane Kember, the "Guardian"
                     (head of the Guardian's Office, then the second-highest
                      office in all of Scientology after Hubbard
                      himself),  and Hubbard's third wife Mary Sue.
    
                     Despite Scientology's claim that these criminals have
                     been ousted, several of the convicted felons,
                     including Duke Snider, Henning Heldt, Mo Budlong, and
                     Dick Weigand, are still active in Scientology.
                       http://www.wwwaif.net/GO/new.html
    
                     Kendrick Moxon, senior attorney for Scientology,
                     was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this case.
                     Today, the bankrupt California Scientology organization
                     maintains its offices within Moxon's law firm; Moxon
                     was the lead attorney in Scientology's successful
                     campaign to sue the Cult Awareness Network ("CAN")
                     into bankruptcy and receivership.
    
                     In July 1992, the Church of Scientology was found guilty
                     of infiltrating the Toronto Police, and the offices of
                     Revenue Canada, the Ontario Attorney General, and the
                     Ontario provincial government.
                     Thousands of files had been stolen.
                       http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/toronto
    
    
                   * Scientology's Guardian's Office criminally harassed
                     Paulette  Cooper, author of the early critical book
                     _The_Scandal_of_Scientology_, by stealing her personal
                     stationery with her finger prints, forging bomb threats
                     to themselves, and then reporting the "threat" to the
                     FBI; by stealing and making public the confidential
                     patient records of Cooper's psychotherapy;  by spreading
                     false and discreditable information about Cooper among
                     her neighbors; by instigating fourteen separate lawsuits
                     against her; and much more.
                       http://holysmoke.org/pc/pc.htm
    
    http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/cooper/index.html
    
                   * In "Operation Keeler", just one of a long list of
                     "ops" against Gabe Cazares, then Mayor of
                     Clearwater, Florida, the GO damaged Cazares'
                     political career by staging a faked hit-and-run
                     accident, and then "leaking" the incident widely
                     just before the next mayoral election.  (Cazares
                     had opposed the virtual  occupation of his town by
                     Scientology's "Flag Land Base".)
                       http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/Co$/docs/cazares.html
                       http://www.xenu-city.net/
                       http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/Co$/timeline.html
    
                  In 1977, in the enormous FBI raid of Scientology sites
                  that led to the Snow White convictions in Canada and
                  the United States, documents were seized that planned
                  for future criminal activities by the Guardian's Office:
                     http://www.rickross.com/reference/canada2.html
                     http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/Co$/docs/index.html
    
                     Operation Snapper:  A plan to discredit California
                        Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Tapper, and to
                        force him from public office, by fabricating
                        circumstantial evidence that Tapper was trafficing
                        in drugs and had fathered a child out of wedlock.
    
                     Operation Juicy Clanger:  A plan to pressure the IRS
                        into granting Scientology tax-exempt status, by
                        threatening to disclose information gleaned from
                        individual tax records stolen from IRS files.
                        Tax records found among the seized documents
                        included those of singers Frank Sinatra and
                        Doris Day, California Governor Edmund Brown, and
                        Los Angeles mayors Tom Bradley and Sam Yorty.
    
                     Operation PC Freakout: planned further harassment of
                        author Paulette Cooper: sending forged bomb threats
                        to Arab consulates in Washington DC, and to Henry
                        Kissinger.
    
                     Operation Quaker:  a plan to spirit material witnesses
                        out of the country.
    
                     Operation Street-man: a deep background investigation
                        of Clearwater mayor Gabe Cazares, with the intent of
                        finding discreditable facts or material suitable for
                        blackmail.
    
                   Heber Jentzsch and Warren McShane were officials in the
                   Guardian's Office, under whose auspices these felonies
                   were planned and carried out.
    
                   Today Jentzsch is the president of the "Church"
                   of Scientology International, and McShane is the head
                   of the Religious Technology Corporation ("RTC"),
                   which presses "copyright" lawsuits against journalists
                   and critics on behalf of Scientology.
    
                   * Greece: all Scientology organizations have been
                     ordered closed by the courts, in the aftermath of
                     a 1995 raid that found the Greek branch of OSA in
                     possession of classified Greek military documents,
                     and exposed evidence that Scientology operatives had
                     penetrated the Greek Secret Service, KYP, between
                     1993 and 1995.
                        http://w4u.eexi.gr/~antbos/COSDOCUM.HTM
    
                   * France: in 1979, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted
                     (in absentia) of fraud, sentenced to four years in
                     prison, and fined 35,000 francs.  Three other
                     principals of Scientology in France were given lesser
                     fines and sentenced to terms from 1 to 3 years.
                     In 1996, 14 Scientologists were convicted of fraud
                     in a Lyon court; the former head of the Lyon Scientology
                     organization, Jean-Jacques Mazier, was found guilty of
                     manslaughter, fined 500,000 francs, and sentenced to
                     18 months imprisonment, and an 18 month suspended sentence.
                     In 1999, Xavier Delamare, former head of Scientology's
                     branch in Marseille, and five other Scientologists were
                     convicted of fraud in a 10-year-old case.  Delamare was
                     sentenced to two years in prison.
    
                   * Spain: in 1988, Spanish police raided a Scientology
                     conference and nineteen Scientology offices in seven
                     cities, eventually resulting in thirty-seven arrests.
                     Scientology President Heber Jentzsch  was one of
                     seventy Scientologists initially held on suspicion of
                     coercion, fraud, tax evasion, forging of public documents,
                     and embezzlement.  Jentzsch was soon released (as were
                     fifty-nine others, including all non-Spaniards).  Eleven
                     Scientologists, deemed "undesireable aliens", were ordered
                     to leave the country.  In 1994, Jentzsch and twenty
                     Spanish Scientolgists were finally indicted on twelve
                     different felony counts, and were required to post a bond
                     of about 1.1 million dollars.
    
    
    
      Scientology  has systematically stolen and destroyed library copies
                   of critical books, magazines, and newspapers, including:
    
              _A_Piece_of_Blue_Sky_, J. Atack
                http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/index.html
    
              _The_Road_To_Xenu_, M. Wakefield
                http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/xenu.html
    
              _Bare-Faced_Messiah_, R. Miller
                http://www.discord.org/~lippard/bfm/
                http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/bfmconte.htm
                http://xenu.phys.uit.no/books/bfm/
    
              _Religion,_Inc_, S. Lamont
                 http://pweb.netcom.com/~seekon/lamont.html
    
              _L_Ron_Hubbard,_Messiah_or_Madman_, B. Corydon
                http://www.xenu.org/factnet/GEN/FILES/BOOKS/CORYDON.TXT
    
              _The_Scandal_of_Scientology_, P. Cooper
               http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/cooper/index.html
    
              _The_Road_To_Total_Freedom_, R. Wallis
    
              "Scientology Unmasked"
                 Boston Herald, March 1, 1998
                 First Prize, Investigative Reporting 1998
                 New England Press Association
                 http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/
    
              "Do You Want To Buy a Bridge?", Mark Ebner
                 SPY Magazine, February 1996
    
              "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power"
                 Time Magazine, May 6, 1991  page 50 (cover story)
                 http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time91605.html
                 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html
    
              "The Scientology Story" (in six parts)
                 Los Angeles Times, June 24-29, 1990
                 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/dst/Library/Shelf/la90/
    
              "The Prophet and Profits of Scientology"
                 Forbes, October 27, 1986
                 http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lron-info1.htm
    
              "Scientology: The Sickness Spreads"
                 Reader's Digest, September 1981
                 http://www.skeptictank.org/readdig2.htm
                 http://www.xenu.org/factnet/GEN/FILES/MEDIA01/METHVIN2.TXT
    
              "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult"
                 Reader's Digest, May 1980
                 http://www.skeptictank.org/readdig.htm
    
              "Scientology Brings Four Years of Discord"
                 and thirteen other related investigative articles
                 by Charles Stafford and Betty Orsini
                 Winner, 1980 Pulitzer for national reporting
                 The St. Petersburg Times, December 1979
                 http://www.holysmoke.org/cw.htm
    
    
              "Scientology:  A Long Trail of Controversy"
                 and six other related investigative articles
                    Los Angeles Times, August 27, 1978
                    http://www.rpi.net.au/~marina/latimes/index.htm
    
              "Scientology -
                 A Growing Cult Reaches Dangerously Into the Mind"
                 and "Scientology. A True-Life Nightmare"  by Alan Levy
                 Life Magazine,  Nov. 15, 1968  pages 99-100 and 100B-114
    
    
    
    
      Scientology  is enormously litigious.
    
                   The "Church" of Scientology has an in-house legal
                   department, and has amassed an incredible history
                   of lawsuits:
    
                   - Against legitimate news media, such as _Time_,
                     The Readers' Digest, and the Washington Post,
                     in a partially-successful attempt to stifle accurate
                     reporting of its history, actions, policies,
                     and beliefs.
    
                   - Against individuals or organizations that use any
                     part of Hubbard's "technology" outside the
                     auspices of Scientology.
    
                   - Against ex-members who seek to make public
                     Scientology's systematic and continuing abuse of
                     its members, its critics, and of the courts.
    
                   - Against the US Internal Revenue Service, when
                     that organization originally (and quite
                     rightly) ruled that Scientology was *not* a
                     non-profit charitable organization, and was
                     thus not entitled to tax-exempt status.
                        http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/irs.html
    
    
      Scientology  is legally structured as a bewildering tangle of
                   dummy corporations and shells, which serve as a shield
                   against legal accountability.
    
    
      Scientology  kills.
    
                   On December 5, 1995, dedicated young Scientologist
                   Lisa McPherson was pronounced dead on arrival
                   at a hospital north of Clearwater, Florida.
    
                   According to the coroner's report, Lisa's body was
                   severely underweight and exhibited numerous bruises
                   and insect bites; the cause of death was listed as
                   a blood clot caused by extreme dehydration.
                     http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
    
                   On November 13, 1998, the Church of Scientology's
                   Clearwater "Flag Service Organization" was indicted
                   on 2 felony charges in Mcpherson's death.
    
                   Lisa's family has brought an additional civil suit
                   for wrongful death.  The family claims that
                   Scientology's "technology" damaged Lisa's mental health,
                   and that after she attempted to escape Scientology
                   control, Flag Service personnel recaptured her and
                   confined her, sometimes drugged, for seventeen days
                   without adequate food, water, or medical care.
    
                   Konrad Aigner, Patrice Vic, Noah Lottick, and Susan
                   Meister are four other young people whose lives were
                   tragically cut short by their involvement in Scientology.
                     http://cisar.org/konrad.htm
                     http://www.rickross.com/reference/Art54.html
                     http://www.lermanet.com/cos/noah.html
                     http://davel.www.cistron.nl/susan.htm
    
                     http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/deaths.html
                     http://www.scientology-kills.net
    
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
           A few WWW sites for the beginning researcher:
    
            Critical introduction to Scientology:
               http://www.modemac.com/cos/
    
            Index to Scientology's own web site:
                http://www.scientology.org/search/indxmstr.htm
    
            Well-researched, documented, and well-written essays
            about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard:
                http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/
                http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/LRH-bio/lrhpaper.htm
    
            First person narrative of one person's career in Scientology:
               http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu
    
            The first critical Web page, and still good:
               http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/index.html
    
            More detail, well organized:
               http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html
               http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/index.html
               http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/
    
            A fine example of Scientology dead-agenting on the Web
               http://www.parishioners.org/Intolerance/
    
            Operation Clambake, the all-round best critical site:
               http://www.xenu.net/
    
            The Sekret Skripchurs
                http://cleartech1.chat.ru/
                http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/
                http://www.xenu.net/archive/secret.html
    
            Canonical list of all Scientology Web resources:
                 http://www.altreligionscientology.org/
                 http://www.xenu.net/archive/arsweb/
    
    
    ---
    
    From: "ßobÇat" <bob.catat_private>
    To: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private>
    Subject: Freedom Magazine Church of Scientology Int. edition - The Internet
    Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:58:23 -0400
    
    The position paper from Linda Simmons Hight mentions Freedom Magazine, the
    CoS zine. Politechers might like to read what they have to say about
    hijacked IP and free speech, and other horrors of the Net.
    
    http://www.freedomontheinternet.org/freedom-internet.htm
    
    A fairly-used quote from "A Crime by Any other Name":
    
    "The child pornographer who seeks new children to exploit, the prodigious
    criminal who "fixes" a radio contest, the child and wife abuser who turns to
    misappropriating copyrighted works - all have shown continuing flagrant
    disregard for the law and have simply moved their activities onto the
    information superhighway in their mistaken belief that they would not be
    held accountable."
    
    ---
    
    Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:29:19 -0400
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    From: Arnaldo Lerma <alermaat_private>
    Subject: Re: Arnie Lerma replies to Scientology's Internet position
       paper
    In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020828015048.0256b7c0at_private>
    Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    
    Also... you may use this [ there are so many lies and half-truths in that 
    thing, I know other folks are pointing those out to you....] this is my 
    recent letter to Senate Judiciary cmte:
    
    Open letter to
    Members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
    
    
    There is an organization that, that regardless of which corporation its 
    members work in, encourages and supports the following:
    
    1) A plan for the best apparent performance monetarily on a weekly basis, 
    compare to planning for the next quarterly report versus planning for the 
    long term...
    
    2) Saying publicly that its members must obey the law, while turning a 
    blind eye if those members manage to accumulate vast sums of money. - 
    Example - Reed Slatkin, the perpetrator of a 1/2 billion dollar ponzi scheme.
    
    3) That hold's its goals above those of law, and whose operating 
    headquarters, being tolerated and allowed to flourish in the United States 
    is by our toleration of it, causing distrust and consternation amongst 
    allies around the world.
    
    4) An organization which extorted the IRS to give them tax exempt status 
    under a sealed, secret settlement, by the filing hundreds of nuisance lawsuits.
    
    5) An organization that has forced its own members to have abortions
    
    6) An organization that was party to the largest conspiracy to infiltrate 
    and burglarize government offices and whose leaders were convicted and went 
    to jail in 1982.
    
    7) An organization that has been convicted of "breach of the Public Trust" 
    in Canada.
    
    8) An organization whose founder has been convicted of FRAUD in France.
    
    9) An organization whose members are encouraged to "Make it go right" 
    without reservation, to bring in money.
    
    10) An organization who is represented by the same law firm that once 
    represented both the USSR and the American Communist Party.
    
    11) An organization that to this day lies about its own founder's military 
    record as part of its plot to deceive young people and minorities who do 
    not have access to the voluminous documentation on the world wide web.
    
    12) An organization with a long documented policy of abuse of our court 
    system, specifically, "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage 
    rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough 
    harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing 
    that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his 
    professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."  (as 
    quoted by Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema in RTC Vs Lerma)
    
    14) An organization with an immutable and totalitarian policy to 
    infiltrate, influence, and dominate American communities and government.
    
    15) An organization the breaks up families with a written policy of 
    disconnection from troublesome sources of information.
    
    16) An organization that runs veritable gulags for the disaffected so that 
    they might never be witness against them.
    
    17) An organization whose founder states "Someday, someone, will say this 
    is illegal.. let's make sure that by that time we are the ones who say what 
    is legal or not."
    
    
    Would you not be motivated to ACT?
    
    Now what if this organization were called Scientology,
    would you lose your will to act?
    
    There are those who have not, and we desperately need your assistance.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Arnaldo Lerma
    alermaat_private
    703-241 1498
    
    
    Founder: Citizens Against Corruption, 6045 N 26th Road Arlington Virginia 
    22207 WWW.LERMANET.COM
    exposing the con
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q\clan
    CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 23:39:26 PDT