[1 statement from the Church of Scientology re: its raid on the home of Dennis Erlich; followed by 2 messages of stern criticism of this CoS statement.] Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: hkk@netcom.com (Helena Kobrin) Subject: Dennis Erlich Rumors Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:22:54 GMT I represent two Scientology entities which have filed suit against Dennis Erlich for violating their copyrights. To quell any rumors started by people who do not have the true facts about this suit, I am providing the correct information here. Erlich has repeatedly posted published and unpublished materials on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup which are subject to copyrights registered with the United States Copyright Office. Attempts by my clients to engage Mr. Erlich in any meaningful dialogue have met with an absolute refusal to communicate -- he would not even speak with my clients' representatives. Written communications to Mr. Erlich requesting that he cease his infringements have been met with defiant insistence that he will do what he wants to do, proven by his renewed postings of copyrighted materials. In one message he went so far as to claim that not even the courts or other arms of the government have the right to stop him. Consequently, in the early morning hours of February 13, 1995, law enforcement representatives executed an order issued by the Federal District Court in San Francisco and raided Erlich's home, seizing several boxes of infringing materials and computer disks. The Court considered Erlich's defiant attitude and his disdain for the Court when it issued the seizure order to prevent Erlich from continuing his flagrant violations. Erlich confirmed that the seizure was necessary when he did the very thing which the order was designed to prevent -- he attempted to conceal the main repository of the infringing copies which he posted rather than comply with the Federal Court order. Many net users encouraged us to bring suit against Erlich and now we have done so. Faced with Erlich's refusal to cease his infringements voluntarily, my clients had no choice but to take action. Erlich could have stopped this at any time by communicating. He chose to continue his unlawful conduct and has only himself to blame. The lawsuit against Erlich is about protecting intellectual property rights. It is not about freedom of speech, or about religious disputes. My clients are ardent supporters of the First Amendment, and are extremely active in defending it. Erlich tries to hide behind it and use it to excuse his unlawful conduct. People can express their opinions and have as many discussions as they want. However, the law does not permit the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights and free speech is not the freedom to steal. Helena K. Kobrin HKK@netcom.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.cpsr.talk.news.groups From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: Dennis Erlich Rumors Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:52:25 GMT [...] And how do you address the fact that he's a publisher, and under Federal Law immune from the kind of search and seizure you had executed? Did you tell the Federal Judge who granted the warrant that he was a publisher, or did you suppress that material information? The Steve Jackson Games case and the Electronic Frontier Foundation both addressed this issue. Your power extends to discovery and injunction but not to search and seizure with respect to publishers. If you suppressed that material information, I think you're right in the path of a pretty severe contempt citation. In addition I speculate that you're also in the way of a pretty good lawsuit with quite nice punitive damages for the litigant. Disclaimer: The above is a layman's opinion, based on what I've read here and in other civil liberties newsgroups. It does not constitute legal opinion or advice. For legal advice consult an attorney. :-) David Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse,misc.legal.computing,misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.misc From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Subject: Inaccuracies (was Re: Scientology Lawyer Speaks!) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:49:28 GMT Helena Kobrin (hkk@netcom.com) spoketh with earnestness: >Subject: Dennis Erlich Rumors > >I am providing the correct information here. As you believe it is correct. Others have given a different viewpoint. > Erlich has repeatedly posted published and unpublished >materials on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup which are >subject to copyrights registered with the United States Copyright >Office. Attempts by my clients to engage Mr. Erlich in any So you claim. When he is convicted in a court of law, then I will bow down to your claims of copyright and call them blessed. Erlich is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And the tone of public pronouncements by a legal representative who wants to see justice would follow this principle. If you would have worded it "we will prove in court that these materials are copyrighted and that Erlich's use of them far exceeded "Fair Use", and thus he is guilty of copyright infringement", then we'd find your wording to be morally acceptable. We just can't believe any other way -- your statements that they *are* as a certainty is just legal mumbo-jumbo which doesn't go over too well with the Internet community. We are too smart for playing games. That's one reason CoS is developing such a bad, and virtually irreversible, reputation on the Internet. Bad PR move. Big time bad. You should have listened to early advisements from me and others on the Internet. We know the dynamics and personality of the Internet, and CoS is now only learning that the Internet is not anything like you've seen before. >meaningful dialogue have met with an absolute refusal to >communicate -- he would not even speak with my clients' >representatives. Written communications to Mr. Erlich requesting I wonder why? With the tone of voice you wrote above, it is no wonder he wouldn't talk to you. I'm having difficulty trying to remain calm in this post for the same reason. But I'm sure he would have listened to a Federal judge telling him to cease, despite your arguments that he would have not. >that he cease his infringements have been met with defiant >insistence that he will do what he wants to do, proven by his >renewed postings of copyrighted materials. In one message he >went so far as to claim that not even the courts or other arms of >the government have the right to stop him. Post the message in its entirety, otherwise we will have to say you made this interpretation incorrectly (out of context) as this is an attack on his character. And the word 'defiant' is emotionally-laden and should not have been used in this context. 'Seemingly defiant' would have been acceptable to us. > Consequently, in the early morning hours of February 13, >1995, law enforcement representatives executed an order issued by >the Federal District Court in San Francisco and raided Erlich's >home, seizing several boxes of infringing materials and computer >disks. The Court considered Erlich's defiant attitude and his >disdain for the Court when it issued the seizure order to prevent >Erlich from continuing his flagrant violations. Erlich confirmed >that the seizure was necessary when he did the very thing which >the order was designed to prevent -- he attempted to conceal the >main repository of the infringing copies which he posted rather >than comply with the Federal Court order. The details of *how* you carried out the "raid" (I like how you use that word -- with flair) are very suspect as Tom Klemesrud, the sysop of support.com, one of the entities you've sued over this, shared this morning. For example, no Federal Marshall accompanied the search team which is considered highly irregular for enforcing a Federal writ of seizure. In addition, what were all those private investigator types doing there? Were they expecting the Glendale police could not keep things in control, or were you expecting a lot of stuff to find? And who took control of the seized material -- you or the courts? Somehow I believe CoS got the information and are right now transcribing it at OSA headquarters (the security arm of CoS). The material apparently included private communications between Dennis and other notable critics of Scientology, and we know from legal affidavits how much CoS respects and admires the views of its critics. If CoS has possession of the material, nothing you will say will convince the Internet that you are keeping a "blind eye" to the material that has no relevance to the copyright issue. The material should have been given to a court-appointed third party to transcribe -- you knew what stuff Dennis had posted in apparent violation of Copyright -- such a third party would thus know what to look for. There are serious privacy issues here. And did you happen to tell the Federal judge that Erlich was a publisher, since there are special Federal laws protecting publishers in situations like this? If you violated the law here, it will hurt your case against Dennis, will just further inflame the Internet and the news media against you, and could even lead to legal challenges against the legal counsel who withheld this information. If it gets to that point, I'm sure the State Bar of California would like to hear about it. I urge that you try to settle this in an all-around acceptable way as I'll outline at the end. And I find this whole affair to be absolutely despicable (I can't think of a nice yet honest word to describe it), as a simple injunction from the courts would probably have stopped Erlich. Thus, almost everybody on the Internet believes you asked for the seizure, and distorted the facts about Erlich's character, in order to get the information as the real reason behind the seizure and that the copyright issue was just a convenient (even *if you are in the right*) excuse. Bad PR move. And had you started with a court injunction first ordering Dennis to cease and desist until he stood trial, I would have supported it. And then, if Dennis had violated the injunction even once, I would have been the first to applaud his arrest or other stronger action as ordered by the court. This is a bad PR move by CoS to handle it the way you did. > Many net users encouraged us to bring suit against Erlich >and now we have done so. Faced with Erlich's refusal to cease >his infringements voluntarily, my clients had no choice but to >take action. Erlich could have stopped this at any time by >communicating. He chose to continue his unlawful conduct and has >only himself to blame. I'm sure I'm one of them who "encouraged you", in a round about way (by my statements of going after the perpetrators of copyright infringements). But I never dreamed that you would stoop so low as to enforce this immoral seizure. How many judges did you have to ask until you found one who would grant this? I heard second-hand (not yet verified) that you asked a judge in Southern California for the writ of seizure who turned you down, no doubt believing it wasn't necessary -- a simple indictment and a court order ordering Dennis to cease and desist would have been more than adequate. If Erlich violated the court order, then you could have lowered the boom on him like you did on Feb. 13 and many of us on the Internet would have found that more acceptable. Anyway, it shows the weakness of your case by the facts as I know them. If any of my important facts are wrong, do correct me. > The lawsuit against Erlich is about protecting intellectual >property rights. It is not about freedom of speech, or about >religious disputes. My clients are ardent supporters of the >First Amendment, and are extremely active in defending it. >Erlich tries to hide behind it and use it to excuse his unlawful >conduct. People can express their opinions and have as many >discussions as they want. However, the law does not permit the >flagrant violation of intellectual property rights and free >speech is not the freedom to steal. > >Helena K. Kobrin >HKK@netcom.com So, what about Netcom, and what about support.com? Your lack of even mentioning them is quite curious in this context. Why include them in your lawsuit? By including them, you are directly touching upon the areas of freedom of speech and religion, and the net.community sees this very clearly. EFF may get involved in some capacity (too early to tell) because of this. Do you want the negative PR this will engender? Instead, you've chosen to ruthlessly and publicly attack the character of Dennis Erlich (i.e., dead agenting) as seen by your post and by the absolutely libelous post by CoS representative Lee Holzinger (sp.?) earlier today. Lee called Dennis a "wife-beater", a "execution-style animal killer", and other absolutely amazing things in that post. By not disavowing the unsubstantiated character attacks that Lee said earlier, the Internet is viewing you as also supporting said statements. Bad PR move and one that does not endear you to the net nor to the news media. I urge you to retract those statements as they have no bearing on the copyright issue and just make you look silly -- they actually harm your case! In summary, your reply leaves much to be desired. It is perceived to be, if I may be so blunt, to be somewhat arrogant and condescending to the Internet community. It would have been better if you had not even posted it as the Internet is read by very highly intelligent people who are not easily swayed by emotionally-laden arguments. They see the fallacies in this case, and are especially troubled by bringing support.com and Netcom into this. Dennis Erlich has a very strong case, imho, to sue CoS on several grounds: libel, improperly done search/seizure, and possibly others. Unfortunately, he is an individual, and against a well-funded organization with very deep pockets like CoS, it is tough for an individual to sue and collect damages from CoS (e.g., Wollersheim -- what do they say at OSA "not one thin dime for Wollersheim"?). But it is not impossible, and the Internet itself may rise to support Dennis in ways you can't imagine. When you start cooperating with the Internet rather than attack it (the suits against Netcom and support.com are direct assaults against the Internet and should be dropped for various legal reasons), we'll begin to listen to you and try to help solve any legitimate copyright infringement complaints you may have. Had you heeded the terms of the recent CoS Petition, you'd be in much better shape to get what you want with regard to stopping copyright infringements and to develop the good will of the Internet. Instead, all you got is the contempt of the Internet, and I'm afraid it is so poisoned against Scientology that it will be virtually impossible for CoS to gain the respect of the Net community ever again. Don't say I didn't advise you that this would happen. The Biblical adage "You reap what you sew" is so true here. What would I advise you do that would be acceptable to me and possibly others on the Internet and which could give you back some respect (the following advice has not been submitted to anybody, it is solely my idea)? Well, for starters, I'd save money for everybody and drop all charges against Dennis, support.com, and Netcom, and would ask the judge to put a restraining order on Dennis ordering him to never again post or distribute certain materials as specificaly outlined in the restraining order. I'm sure part of the deal would be that Dennis would also drop most charges against CoS for various violations of his civil liberties and due process. And if he violates the restraining order to the satisfaction of the judge, then you can lower the boom on him big time and the Internet community would more likely be supportive, or at least less incensed over, such said action. It's your move. Jon Noring -- OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two 1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations.