Veritas dead agent pack.
Nelson
it's people? I mean aside from "they are all nuts"?
I would like to see the offical reply/dead agenting/etc about the material
at this site. It would be very curious and out of valence if either RTC or
CST have never sued over this material that very much calls the trademarks
into question.
I mean talk about promoting misownership of trademarks or misapropriation of
them. This site says govenment agents and lawyers hyjacked and now own the
Scientology trademarks and have watered down the technology for decades. So
where is the classic attack mode about it? The absence of civil action is
disturbing in itself.
Or has there been some?
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm
Nelson
Kevin Brady
"Nelson" <nels...@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
news:3ab71...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Does anyone know of the offical dead agent pack about the Veritas site and
> it's people? I mean aside from "they are all nuts"?
>
> I would like to see the offical reply/dead agenting/etc about the material
> at this site. It would be very curious and out of valence if either RTC
or
> CST have never sued over this material that very much calls the trademarks
> into question.
Don't like it when names get named, do you?
> I mean talk about promoting misownership of trademarks or misapropriation
of
> them. This site says govenment agents and lawyers hyjacked and now own the
> Scientology trademarks and have watered down the technology for decades.
So
> where is the classic attack mode about it? The absence of civil action is
> disturbing in itself.
> Or has there been some?
Why don't you write to them, tell them who you are, let them investigate
your bias, and decide for themselves if they would like to share that
information with you?
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm
> Nelson
Chris Owen
<nels...@powersurfr.com> writes
>Does anyone know of the offical dead agent pack about the Veritas site and
>it's people? I mean aside from "they are all nuts"?
Nelson, for the first time ever, you and I are in complete agreement...
But seriously, who needs to dead agent Veritas when they condemn
themselves with every new post they make?
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Anonymous
<3ab71...@news2.lightlink.com> :
>Does anyone know of the offical dead agent pack about the Veritas site
>and it's people? I mean aside from "they are all nuts"?
>
>I would like to see the offical reply/dead agenting/etc about the
>material at this site. It would be very curious and out of valence if
>either RTC or CST have never sued over this material that very much
>calls the trademarks into question.
I think you mean "copyrights." There is a difference.
>I mean talk about promoting misownership of trademarks or
>misapropriation of them. This site says govenment agents and lawyers
>hyjacked and now own the Scientology trademarks and have watered down
>the technology for decades. So where is the classic attack mode about
>it? The absence of civil action is disturbing in itself.
>Or has there been some?
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm
>Nelson
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. I pulled the following two
messages from my a.r.s. collection which is all I've ever seen about
attacks on the Veritas web site. The first one is from a lurker. The second
one is from the editor of the site. (The second one has a PGP signature on
it but I don't know if it will do any good in this reproduction after going
through reformatting and remailers. I'm not up on this stuff.)
They must have redone their site since the first message because the urls
in the first one aren't valid anymore. The urls in the second one are.
***************BEGIN FIRST MESSAGE REPOST*****************
Subject: Veritas Attacked
Date: 13 Jan 1998 21:29:11 +0100
From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Organization: Replay Associates, L.L.P.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Lurk mode "off." (Again)
I "de-lurked" here a few weeks ago about the site at:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/meteya/veritas/
I said then that:
>Anyway, it is not generally known that some Co$ strong-arm
>tactics were used to try to get the site removed. The person who
>owns the site, I'm told, sent back a scathing letter to Co$,
>basically telling them to FOAD.
>I'll try to find out if she has a copy of hte letter that the
>owner of the site sent to OSA or whoever and see if I can get
>somebody to post it. Then I'm staying out of this.
Well, looks Like I have to be the poster, too <g>. Here it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------
XXX XXXXXXX October 10, 1997
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Clever Computers, Inc.
18 Perimeter Park Drive NW, Suite 111
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 2, 1997 in regard to the web
site with the primary address of
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/
meteya/veritas/index.htm and including subpages.
I am also in receipt of the copies you enclosed of a letter that I
understand was sent to you by a Ms. Stein. She appears, from the context of
her letter, to be representing the Church of Scientology in some capacity,
although her position with the church is not stated anywhere in her letter,
and her letter is not on any sort of official stationery. So as far as I
know, this could just be the work of some unstable person trying to cause
trouble. And the body of the letter could even be interpreted as supporting
that conclusion. But since you felt that two of the points she made were at
least worthy of correspondence with me, and as I respect and value my
relationship with you and with Clever Computers, I am taking the time to
respond.
First, I want to thank you for the courtesy and consideration you have
shown in handling this matter with me, and to express my deep regret that
you and Clever Computers have now been drawn unnecessarily into this
through Ms. Stein{s insupportable complaints.
After due consultation with the editors of Veritas, and after due
consideration of applicable laws, specifically, but not limited to, those
contained at USC Title 17, I must contest the allegations apparently
originated by Ms. Stein.
I do vigorously contend that the material on the referenced site does not
violate the Contract I have with Clever Computers, and so, in accordance
with your request, I am writing to provide you with ample evidence to
support my position:
I. ALLEGED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
Your letter refers to "an image of a copyrighted publication of the Church
of Scientology International (CSI)." According to Ms. Stein{s letter, this
refers to the thumbnail image of the front page of an item with the title
"Public Warning." I assert that the referenced thumbnail image does not and
cannot constitute copyright infringement for several reasons:
A. If CSI claims copyright for "Public Warning" as a "literary work," per
USC 17 [Section]101, Definitions, then any claim of infringement is
laughable, as no part of the text is even vaguely legible in the referenced
thumbnail image on the site. The only readable portion of the image is the
title, "Public Warning," such titles not being protected or protectable by
copyright. Even if CSI were able to claim copyright for the readable title
(which they can{t), they still have no triable issue because of the Fair
Use section of USC 17 (see below).
B. If CSI claims copyright for "Public Warning" as a "pictorial, graphic"
work per USC 17 [Section]101, Definitions, claiming ownership of the photos
used on "Public Warning," I would require proof of their authorship for
those photos, and proof of their ownership of the copyrights for said
photos. I believe CSI would be loathe to claim such authorship and
copyright, since an inherent part of the libel suit covered in Veritas{s
story is the claim by at least one of the plaintiffs, Lisa Jan Precious,
that CSI are, themselves, guilty of copyright infringement in the use of
her photo:
"1c. It is indisputable that the libelous publication
('Public Warning') has great and extensive potential to
damage the planned future growth of the foregoing
project (Premiere Parent), in that the photograph of the
Plaintiff published on the front page of the libelous
publication ("Public Warning") is a copy of the very same
photograph of this Plaintiff published on the cover of the
Premiere Parent book... . It must be noted that this
particular photograph is clearly disclosed as having a
copyright, stated within the first page of the book. The
additional matter of copyright infringement will be dealt
with in the proper venue separate from this complaint."
From "Verified Statement of Demand for Damages of
Lisa Jan Precious in Support of the
Verified Complaint for Libel"
(Full document available on Veritas{s site)
The editors of Veritas are currently in possession of a copy of "Premiere
Parent" which I have seen, and which clearly has the photo in question on
its cover, and, indeed, has a clear and correct notice of copyright.
Regardless of all this, the editors of Veritas have stated that they would
welcome proof by CSI of authorship and copyright for the photographic
images that CSI used on "Public Warning," and would consider the
possibility of adjusting the site accordingly, should such proof be
forthcoming by registered mail via you, and subject, of course, to the Fair
Use statutes, below.
C. Despite any copyright that CSI might claim, any and all use of "Public
Warning" or any part thereof, as it currently exists on the site in
question, indisputably falls under the Fair Use statute at USC 17 [Section]
107, quoted below in full:
USC 17 [Section] 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and
106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use
by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for
or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work
is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all
the above factors.
The use of the thumbnail image of "Public Warning" is a textbook example of
correct and proper Fair Use, and passes every test with honors:
1. The purpose and character of the use is not even vaguely commercial, and
is clearly and undeniably for nonprofit educational purposes. This is
expressly spelled out in the notice on the home page of the site, which
says, in part:
"Veritas is a public service dedicated to information and
education. ...All materials on this site are here strictly
to inform and educate the public."
In carrying out Veritas{s purposes of information and education, the
editors also utilize criticism, comment, and news reporting--exactly as
specified in USC 17 [Section] 107. The image in question is used fairly to
establish the actuality and existence of the instrument of alleged
libel--which is critical to the story covered extensively in the content of
the Veritas site.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work is not, itself, commercial; it is not
a work that was or is for sale, and therefore does not claim or represent
intrinsic value that could be compromised. Additionally, it is an
instrument of alleged libel in a $190 million civil suit, and therefore is
extremely newsworthy. (As an aside, the title "Public Warning" pretends
that the contents are in the public interest, and so should be made known.
The very act of copyrighting something titled "Public Warning" could be
considered extremely disingenuous and misleading, but that argument is not
even necessary to the present facts.)
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole is negligible. The thumbnail provides no
legible text except for title. There is simply no triable issue raised by
Ms. Stein. Any claim of copyright infringement is frivolous.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work = $0. See above. Note also that USC 17 [Section] 107
specifically extends Fair Use protection to unpublished works.
For all the reasons stated in A-C above, I cannot lend any credence to a
complaint of copyright infringement. Both the editors of Veritas and I are
resolute in our stance that the use of "Public Warning" on the Veritas site
is unassailable as Fair Use. We would hope that Clever Computers would
agree, and dismiss out of hand any frivolous and insupportable allegations
of "copyright infringement."
II. ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT
Your letter refers to a "reference to four persons as Scientologists, when,
in fact, they have been excommunicated from that organization."
The editors of Veritas have contacted the four persons in question, and
each and every one of them asserts that they are, in fact, Scientologists,
and are prepared to submit sworn declarations to that effect if asked to do
so.
In support of that assertion, they have sent to the editors of Veritas the
following definition from "Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary"
by L. Ron Hubbard, ISBN 0-88404-037-2, Second Printing, November 1975:
"SCIENTOLOGIST, 1. one who betters the conditions of himself
and the conditions of others by using Scn (Scientology)
technology."
It is their statement and assertion that they do better the conditions of
themselves and the conditions of others by using Scientology technology,
and so, according to the authorized definition authored by the Founder of
Scientology, are Scientologists. That is how they represent themselves, and
Veritas has merely reported that fact.
If someone says they are Buddhist, does a publication have to get clearance
from the Far East before reporting that? Sheer idiocy.
Neither I nor the editors of Veritas presume the power or the right to deny
to others the free exercise of their religion, even if Ms. Stein presumes
that power and right. The editors of Veritas are not agents of the four
persons described on the site as Scientologists, and so are not
"representing" them in any way--merely reporting how they represent
themselves. It is not within the jurisdiction or purview of Veritas to
dictate how they style themselves. They say they are Scientologists.
Veritas has reported them as such. There is no remote case for
misrepresentation against Veritas or anyone connected with it. If Ms. Stein
has a problem with those four persons claiming they are Scientologists, let
Ms. Stein take it up with them directly or through the courts--not come
complaining to me or to Veritas or to Clever Computers. (The four persons
in question are very easy to reach, by the way; all the contact information
is in the documents on the site or linked to the site, and the editors of
Veritas had no trouble contacting them at all.)
Ms. Stein and her collaborators (she uses the term "we" in her letter)
seemingly have decided to launch a two-pronged attack on the First
Amendment: simultaneous assaults against the free exercise of religion and
against freedom of the press. They use the word "excommunicated" as though
it is some incantation that is expected to magically evaporate the
constitutional rights of those whom they oppose.
They dream.
Perhaps in the days of the Holy Roman Empire, the fact of "excommunication"
could effectively cut a person off from the free exercise of his religion.
Perhaps Ms. Stein has not found out that the days of the Dark Ages and the
Inquisition ended some time ago, or perhaps she is simply anxious to bring
them back. Whatever gives rise to her threats, they ring extremely hollow.
She should be made aware that in 1791, all that came to an end when the
first ten amendments were added to the constitution.
I cannot imagine how she hopes to enforce upon these people that they not
call themselves Scientologists. Since "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," what law, then, does she hope to call upon to stop these four
people from freely bettering the conditions of themselves and the
conditions of others by using Scientology technology? If she can{t stop
them from doing that--and no law or court could allow her to--then she
cannot stop them from calling themselves Scientologists, as that is what
defines "Scientologist," according to Scientology{s own dictionary.
How, then, can she find fault with Veritas for reporting the facts as the
editors find the facts to be?
Clearly, there is no misrepresentation of fact whatsoever. Again, there is
no possible triable issue, and the effort to manufacture one is huff and
puff.
There is one difference here, though: the efforts of Ms. Stein and her
collaborators to bring pressure on this matter, if pursued further, could
be construed as a serious assault on the Constitutional rights of Veritas
and/or of the four Scientologists in question.
Conspiracy to deny someone their Constitutional rights is a federal felony:
USC 18, Part I, Chapter 13 [Section] 241, Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State,
Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or because of his having so
exercised the same...They shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both... .
Therefore, I feel it is incumbent upon Clever Computers that it send a
clear and unequivocal message to Ms. Stein that Clever Computers will not
be lured or coerced into such dangerous waters. Let me state emphatically
for the record that I certainly will not be a party to such.
Finally, although you and Clever Comuputers did not specifically request
that I address any other points in Ms. Stein{s letter besides the ones
covered above, and although I don{t believe that her other allegations even
merit a response, there is one other claim she made of copyright
infringement, and I will address that here.
In numbered [Paragraph] 4 of Ms. Stein{s letter, she specifies three URLs
that she claims to contain "defamatory photographic depictions" of David
Miscavige, then goes on to say that "the use of these copyrighted
photographs is entirely unauthorized," and that "(t)he rights in the
photographs are held by Golden Era Productions."
This can only be interpreted to mean that Golden Era Productions owns the
copyrights to defamatory photographic depictions of David Miscavige. If
that is the case, both the editors of Veritas and I long for the
opportunity to see proof of that claim.
The facts, though, are that, in the three URLs named, there is one, and
only one, image that could be referred to as a "photographic depiction," as
far as can be determined by the editors of Veritas, by me, and by a
graphics expert we consulted. That is the URL identified in her letter at
[Paragraph] 4-b. Our best understanding and belief is that the photographic
image in question was taken at a public event that, according to the
Church{s own claims, was attended by at least 15,000 Scientologists. If CSI
does, in fact, have proof that the photographic image in question was,
indeed, taken by Golden Era Productions, and can produce that specific,
exact image with proof of authorship and copyright, and can prove
conclusively that it was not taken by one of the 15,000 attendees at the
event, then the editors of Veritas will happily, cheerfully, and without
regret or contest black out that particular image--noting why.
As for the URLs named at [Paragraph][Paragraph] 4-a and 4-b of Ms. Stein{s
letter, both of those contain original illustrations, not "photographic
depictions," according to the best evidence available to us. This is the
informed opinion of the editors and the art director of Veritas, and of the
graphics expert we consulted. These, in our opinion and belief, are
illustrations done in the long, rich tradition of caricature and lampoon of
a public figure. Hundreds of editorial pages of newspapers carry such
caricatures every day of the year.
According to the primary documents that the editors of Veritas acquired
those images from (The Squirrel Watcher, Volume I, Issue 5 and Volume I,
Issue 6), the images are not copyrighted in any way, and may be reproduced
in any manner.
If, as Ms. Stein{s letter seems to claim, Golden Era Productions is the
creator of those caricatures lampooning David Miscavige, we would love to
see proof of that fact.
Otherwise, we recommend that Ms. Stein broaden her understanding, perhaps
with night classes in graphics and/or legal research.
I trust that this letter has satisfactorily answered the spurious
allegations made by Ms. Stein. Until she can provide proof or evidence of
any real transgression or wrongdoing, I demand that she cease and desist
her tactics of intimidation and threat. I consider them hollow, frivolous,
unfounded, and offensive.
I hereby authorize and request that you pass the contents of this document
on to Ms. Stein, but I specifically require that you remove all reference
to my name, address, phone number, and any other information that would in
any way compromise the contractual obligations of account security that I
enjoy in my contract with Clever Computers. I am enclosing an exact copy of
this letter, minus my personal information, for that purpose.
If you have any further questions on these matters, or need copies of any
of the supporting documentation I have referenced in this letter, please
feel free to contact me, and I will cooperate in any way necessary to lay
this matter to rest.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX
encl.
Lurk mode back "ON!"
****************END FIRST MESSAGE REPOST*****************
***************BEGIN SECOND MESSAGE REPOST***************
From: Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: [FWD] Veritas Under Attack...Again
Date: 15 Oct 1998 10:54:00 +0200
Organization: mail...@replay.com
Message-ID: <1998101508...@replay.com>
[Forwarded by request for better propagation]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear All:
We have received notice of a renewed effort against us.
As many of you may know, The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), through
its licensees--The Religious Technology Center (RTC) and the Office of
Special Affairs (OSA, a branch of the Church of Scientology International
[CSI])--exerted a major effort to get Veritas removed from the web within a
few short weeks after we made our appearance.
Their attempt failed with a spectacular, resounding thud that still
reverberates and is still talked about in the e-mail we receive to this
day.
But for some reason, CST still seems absolutely obsessed with getting rid
of us or reducing our effectiveness by any possible means. Just WHY they
are so obsessed with us is something I will leave to you to decide. But it
is curious, since we have never even expressed an opinion, pro or con,
regarding Scientology itself, or its founder, L. Ron Hubbard.
In fact, some critics of Scientology and of L. Ron Hubbard don't even
acknowledge our existence. Or they attempt to disdain us by labelling
everyone who talks about issues we have covered as "Veritas sock puppets."
Although none of us here has ever figured this out, we can only surmise
that it is because we are not critical enough of, or hostile enough toward
the subject itself or its founder.
But that isn't what we set out to do. What we have done is provide
continuing coverage of a $190-million libel suit against CST, and, as a
result of that coverage, have uncovered and presented some previously
unreported facts about CST, about its relationship to Scientology, and
about its true relationship to the copyrights and trademarks.
Why, then, is this senior-most corporation in Scientology so obsessed with
us? If they weren't obsessed with us, would they be likely to send a
MANAGING PARTNER of a large and powerful law firm (with offices both in
Atlanta and Los Angeles) on unannounced "drop-in" visits to the attorney of
our ISP with complaints and allegations?
In fact, so desperate has CST been to find a way to get us off the net, or
to reduce the number of people that find us, that their latest attack is
on--are you ready?--our metatags.
That's right: they are going after our metatags. Our ISP, clever.net, has
received a message from an attorney requiring us to remove certain
trademarked words from our metatags, the relevant parts of which I
reproduce below, with my comments indented:
>From: AMPaq...@aol.com [mailto:AMPaq...@aol.com]
<SNIP>
>Subject: Unauthorized Use of Registered Trademarks
>
>
>Dear Sir/Madam:
>
>We represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), owner of the
>trademarks of the Scientology religion.
Although the attorney writing the message, Ava Paquette,
says she represents RTC, and claims that RTC is "owner of
the trademarks," I would like to call your attention to
several germane points:
1. She works for the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin. Kendrick
Moxon represents CST.
2. The terms "owner" and "ownership" in Black's Law
Dictionary have several interesting ramifications,
including (but certainly not limited to) these:
"SPECIAL OWNER: One who has a special interest in an article
of property, amounting to a qualified ownership of it... .
Some person holding property with the consent of, and as
representative of, the actual owner."
"OWNERSHIP... Ownership of property is either absolute or
qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single
person has the absolute dominion over it, and may use it or
dispose of it according to his pleasure, subject only to
general laws. The ownership is qualified when it is shared
with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is
deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted."
In reading the above, you might want to also consider this
from the same source:
"PERSON: ...may include a firm, labor organizations,
partnerships, associations, corporations..."
So the word "owner" can, it seems, be used to indicate a
considerable variety of legal relationships other than the
simple ideas of "ownership" most commonly associated with
the word in general usage.
Every scrap of evidence that we have been able to find
establishes, to our satisfaction, that RTC's ownership of
all of its intellectual property is a QUALIFIED ownership
that is SUBJECT to CST's ownership of that same property,
and predicated on OPTIONS that CST enjoys in regards to
those properties IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION.
Of course, nothing in this message constitutes legal opinion
or advice; it is merely lay opinion. And, of course, if any
representative from either CST or RTC would like to make
public any documents that contradict our conclusion, we
would be happy--nay, enthusiastic--to review them.
We don't believe they will, because we don't believe they
can. We believe we have it right, and will continue on the
basis of our conclusions until PROVEN otherwise. In the
meantime, with that said, here is more of the message from
Ava Paquette--an associate of CST's counsel Kendrick Moxon:
>The terms SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS, HUBBARD, L. RON HUBBARD, and
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, are internationally registered
>trademarks and service marks of RTC. Currently, one of your
>subscribers, "Veritas", is using these trade and service marks
>on its web page on your web site in "metatags", located under
>the following URLs:
>
She now goes on to list each page of our site where the offending words are
used as metatags. Since the people her orders come from are trying to
reduce the public's ability to find and read these pages, I thought you
ought to know what is on them, and so I am providing a brief description of
each one:
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
This is our current home page, which broadly revealed
publically for the first time that the so-called "L. Ron
Hubbard Library" is really just a d.b.a. for CST, exposed
the fact that the "primary business address" for CST is a
lowly P.O. box in a strip mall, publically exposed the fact
that CST owns all the copyrights, and publically exposed the
Founders and Special Directors of CST as non-Scientologist
attorneys, one of them a former Assistant to the
Commissioner of IRS.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm
This is our latest page. This renewed attack on us came close
on the heels of our adding this page to our site. This page is
an expos=E9 on connections between Scientology and the CIA.
Among other things, it documents how an NSA agent named Hal
Puthoff entered Scientology, did the OT Levels, and then went
almost directly into the CIA's "Remote Viewing" program. It
also documents that Ingo Swann had a Top Secret clearance
prior to entering Scientology, went up the Scientology levels
to its then-highest level--OT VII--and also immediately became
a principal in the same CIA project. It also documents
inarguable connections between remote viewing and some of
Hubbard's works, the copyrights of which are owned and
controlled by CST.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/newslant/index.htm
This page, among other things, documents alterations to
original Hubbard writings that have been issued by CST (the
L. Ron Hubbard Library).
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/judge/index.htm
This page documents connections that the judge (in the
$190-million libel suit against CST) has to tax-related and
intelligence-oversight committees in the federal government.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/secret/index.htm
This page exposes previously unreported facts about the
Founders of CST: Meade Emory (former Assitant to the
Commissioner of IRS), Sherman Lenske, Leon Misterek, and
Lymon Spurlock. It also documents that fact that Meade Emory
was at IRS when an IRS employ was passing stolen government
documents to the Gurardian's Office.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/copygrab.htm
This page is a long, long graphic chart showing how Norman
Starkey gathered up all L. Ron Hubbard copyrights over a
number of years (by being the Trustee and Executor of L. Ron
Hubbard's Estate, with the counsel of Sherman Lenske, one
of the Founders of CST--along with IRS-connected Meade
Emory), and then, within a month of the tax-exemption from
IRS, transferred all of those copyrights (over 7,000 of
them) to CST.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/power.htm
This page is also a graphic chart which exposed for the very
first time the actual relationship of CST to RTC, CSI, the
trademarks, the copyrights, the Advanced Technology, and the
entire Scientology heirarchy. No such chart had ever been
made publically known before.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cstdba.htm
This page is a scan of the filed d.b.a. which proves that
CST is the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," and that its principal
place of business is a P.O. box (which the form specifically
prohibits).
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/dba.htm
This is a brief chronology of the name "L. Ron Hubbard
Library" to help people sort through any confusion, since
Norman Starkey ALSO used that name when he was going around
gathering up copyrights, like Heidi gathering flowers in the
mountains.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mitchell/index.htm
This was our original main page. It tells the back-story on
the $190-million libel suit that we started out to cover.
As an interesting historical note, CST's name isn't even
mentioned in that original story--even though they were
already named (as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library) in the
suit--since nobody here knew, at the time, what the L. Ron
Hubbard Library was! Shows you how far we've come. But the
story gives a lot of background on the suit and the parties,
and on what might have led to it--including the mysterious
Anonymous Mailings!
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mitchell/complaint.htm
This is an OCR'ed version of the original Complaint in the
libel case, filed by Mitchell et al.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/anon.htm
This is the main page for our article on the mysterious
Anonymous Mailings--which were mentioned in the instrument
of alleged libel, OSA's "Public Warning." We tracked down
sources for those mailings and worked out a way to get them
scanned. This page provides links to our graphic scans of
all but one (as far as we can tell) of the Anonymous
Postcards that apparently led to the issuance of "Public
Warning." (If ANYBODY out there has the elusive missing
postcard, PLEASE contact us at writev...@iname.com.)
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/anon2.htm
More Anonymous Mailings: this page contains links to graphic
scans of a newsletter called "The Squirrel Watcher," also
believed to have been a possible impetus for the publication
of the instrument of alleged libel, "Public Warning."
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/anon3.htm
Just our wrap-up and idle musings regarding these revealing
Anonymous Mailings.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mitchell/casedocs.htm
This is the page where you can link to our WEB versions of
the case documents (from the $190-million libel suit) that
we have managed to get OCR'ed. (WOEFULLY behind on this.
Help!)
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mitchell/amdcomplaint.htm
This is an OCR'ed version of the more recent Amended
Complaint submitted by the Plaintiffs.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm
Just another pointer to our current home page. (Gee, they
liked it so much, they mentioned it twice. :-] )
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/download/index.htm
This page is where you can download various versions of the
Anonymous Mailings, and also text-only versions of some of
the case documents.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/locsamples.htm
This page contains a sampling of actual Library of Congress
entries showing how Norman F. Starkey made himself claimant
on many of the copyrights before transferring title to CST.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-1-1.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume One, Issue One
Commentary on "Based on the Works Of... ." Introduces the
newsletter mascot/icon, "Botwo," the squirrel.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-1-2.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume One, Issue Two Questions
and commentary on "Scientology Policy Directives."
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-1-3.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume One, Issue Three A
three-panel cartoon showing "Botwo" changing "Hubbard
Association of Scientologists International" sign to read
"International Association of Scientologists."
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-1-4.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume One, Issue Four
Headline: "Frequently Asked Questions About the Furry Age
of Management."
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-1-5.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume One, Issue Five
Headline: "DM Squeaks!" (The word "Squeaks" is crossed out,
and the word "Speaks" is hand-written in above it.)
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-1-6.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume One, Issue Six Headline:
"Liars, Damned Liars, and David Miscavige"
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-2-1.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume Two, Issue One, Page 1
Headline: "The Wit and Wisdom of David Miscavige." A
four-page issue providing excerpts and commentary on a
deposition given by Miscavige in a court case.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-2-1b.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume Two, Issue One, Page 2
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-2-1c.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume Two, Issue One, Page 3
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-2-1d.htm
Scan of The Squirrel Watcher, Volume Two, Issue One, Page 4
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/voice.htm
Scan of one of the anonymous postcards showing voice-print
comparisons reportedly taken from a known L. Ron Hubbard
tape, and a suspect one.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/switch.htm
Scan of one of the anonymous postcards alleging a change from
"Scientology" to "the Scientology religion."
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/crime.htm
Scan of one of the anonymous postcards alleging that
"Scientology Policy Directives" constitute a High Crime
Suppressive Act.
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/memb.htm
Scan of one of the anonymous postcards regarding the
International Association of Scientologists (IAS) vs. the
Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (HASI).
> http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/test.htm
Scan of one of the anonymous postcards that also addresses
the matter of "Scientology Policy Directives."
>
>Veritas on has placed (sic) each of these trademarks as
>"metatags" on its web page (sic) without the authorization of
>our client.
>
Despite Ms. Paquette's seeming difficulty with forming an
intelligible English sentence, we thinks we knows what
she means.
>This subscriber's unauthorized use of the above-referenced marks
>as "machine readable code" or "metatags" creates a likelihood of
>confusion as to source or sponsorship of his site by our client,
>in violation of United States state and federal law, including
>the Lanham Act, 17 U.S.C. section 1114 et seq.
>
>Such conduct was expressly prohibited by the court in the recent
>case entitled Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Calvin Designer
>Label, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156 (1997) in which the Court found that
>the use of another trademarks (sic) as "metatags" violated
>United States law because it made the trademark owners's (sic)
>trademarks accessible to "individuals or Internet search engines
>which attempt to access the [trademark owner] under the
>[trademark owner's] registered trademark."
>
>The Court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the infringer
>to immedately cease and desist such activity. In other words,
>using another's registered trademark as a "metatag" not only
>constitutes unauthorized use of the trademark, but the use itself,
>i.e., covertly diverting Internet searchers and individuals away
>from the trademark owner's web site, violates the law.
>
>Our client hereby requests that you take the necessary steps to
>remove these metatags from this web site. Your prompt response and
>compliance are requested.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Ava Paquette
>
We are removing the trademarked words from our metatags, not because we
acknowledge the slightest shred of merit to their argument, but because we
don't wish to subject our ISP, clever.net, to further harrassment.
There is nothing in the case Paquette cites that we believe would set an
applicable precedent for a non-commercial news-and-information site like
Veritas, and so the question of whether or not there is actually an
infringement of any sort is an open one that may well go to constitutional
issues.
But there is NO question that a harrassment suit from CST could cause
considerable cost and trouble to our ISP and to us. For us, it certainly
isn't worth the time or expense or bother, and we see no need to subject
our much-appreciated, supportive, and stalwart ISP to any such nonsense.
- From our analysis, our hits have soared into the thousands based
primarily on:
1. Chain-reaction word-of-mouth (or, these days--e-mail)
2. Others linking to us.
We very much appreciate those who have web sites, and have chosen to put a
link to us on their pages. It has been very beneficial in getting the facts
on our site more broadly known, so please accept our sincere and heartfelt
thanks. We get e-mail by the dozens from people expressing their
appreciation for the information, and often expressing their surprise (and
sometimes even great relief!) at the facts we have documented on the site.
So to those of you who have sent others to our site, through recommendation
or actual links, we'd like to pass this appreciation from our readers
along. We are reaching and informing a lot of people, thanks in large part
to your good recommendations.
We have also been linked to by high-traffic sites like the Art Bell web
site and others, which has resulted in exponential growth that continues
unabated.
We consider this metatags issue a weak and ineffective attack on us. We may
even get extremely bored and decide to contest it at some point in the
future, but only in a way that will not involve or adversely affect our
ISP.
In the meantime, if you would care to help spread the word about CST and
its behind-the-scenes machinations, if you would like more people to be
able to be informed about the developments in the $190 million libel suit
against CST, if you would like to help us counteract this infantile
"attack" (read: "tantrum") which came through the office of CST's counsel,
Kendrick Moxon, if you would like others to have access to the copious
amounts of documented information on our site, then we would be extremely
honored if you chose to add a link to us on your site, or would just let
people know about us any way you choose, or would just help propagate this
message from us.
For those who aren't aware of this yet, you can use ANY image or text from
ANY of our pages. Nothing on our site is copyrighted, and you are free to
use any and all of it in any way you see fit.
If anyone wants to mirror our site or any part of it, go for it!
Some people have picked up some of our graphics, and used those to create a
link to us on their site. We have absolutely no problem with that, and
encourage it. Some people have printed out our pages and used them as
fliers and as info sheets for their friends. The more the merrier! Some
people have converted our articles to text documents and posted them or
sent them around to friends or e-mail lists. We cheer!
If you would like to use one of our illustrations on your own site, feel
free! I you want to reprint or reproduce one of our articles, charts,
tables, graphics--it's yours! Take it! Use it! Spread it!
We are strictly a FREE news-and-information=05service, and our information
is presented for the benefit of all. We do this for one reason: because all
of us involved with Veritas believe that there is nothing that has greater
public value than well-researched, well-documented facts.
The only support we care about or accept is help in getting the word out.
And for that, we are endlessly grateful.
Sincerely,
Marie
Associate Editor, Veritas
- ----------------------------------------------
Veritas was last updated on 22 September 1998.
Please accept an invitation to visit our site:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
- ----------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNiVJFAvhQm1KGzE8EQI21QCgwUjVxpONmL5lTYdwVUiHCXiczDgAn3qC
iP0C3B2LuLDwlzqoiWWviMou
=3DJmBv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
***************END SECOND MESSAGE REPOST***************
Nelson
story. It's call asking questions.
Nelson
"Kevin Brady" <rock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gkOt6.17280$PR.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
Nelson
Nelson
"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:U2HyJMAr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
Nelson
That there is not much to be found is curious in itself given the content of
the site.
Nelson.
"Anonymous" <nob...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in message
news:2c12dbf33d20a411...@remailer.privacy.at...
Kevin Brady
> What the hell are you talking about dude?
Nothing, dude. If you want the other side, read "What is Scientology".
Have hand-cream and a nightstick nearby to really get it right.
Veritas
Hash: SHA1
Dear Mr. Owen,
On Tuesday, 20 March 2001, in a messaged identified as
<U2HyJMAr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, you wrote:
>In article <3ab71...@news2.lightlink.com>, Nelson
><nels...@powersurfr.com> writes
>>Does anyone know of the offical dead agent pack about the Veritas
>>site and it's people? I mean aside from "they are all nuts"?
>
>Nelson, for the first time ever, you and I are in complete
>agreement...
I understood Mr. Nelson's comment to be in reference to efforts by The
Church of Scientology International's Office of Special Affairs (OSA),
and by their parent corporation, Church of Spiritual Technology (CST),
to "dead agent" the Veritas web site. Just as Mr. Nelson accurately
pointed out, the best they've been able to do is make vapid statements
like we're all "nuts," or "loons." The reason for their impotence is
because we don't have any lies on our web site for them to "dead
agent," and they've failed in their efforts to censor us on legal
grounds because our facts are trebly verified and confirmed before
they go onto our site.
In fact, so desperate were efforts to discredit Veritas--after failed
legal attacks by OSA against us and our ISP--that someone actually
resorted to forging vile messages in this forum using the posting name
"Veritas," which is what led us to getting established the PGP key I'm
using to post this.
So by your statement that you and Mr. Nelson are "in complete
agreement," did you mean:
A) Yes, you agree that impotent cries of "they're all nuts" is the
best OSA and CST and their attorneys can mount against us, or
B) Yes, you agree completely with OSA and CST's propaganda campaign
that we are all just "nuts" or "loons"?
Your next comment seems to support "B" above:
>But seriously, who needs to dead agent Veritas when they condemn
>themselves with every new post they make?
Perhaps you have at least a little more decency and integrity than CST
and OSA, and so will extend me the courtesy of being more specific and
honest in your attempts at discrediting us than they've been.
Or perhaps you don't have any more decency than they. Perhaps you are
every bit as impotent, as dishonest, and--for some reason--as
desperate in attempting to discredit Veritas as OSA and CST are. That
can only be determined by your response, or by your very telling lack
of response.
I'd like to know if you have some valid criticism of something
specific in regard to Veritas, or if you are in fact allied with OSA
and CST in their very determined effort to discredit Veritas and the
information on our site--which I would find very, very curious.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
I'll look forward to finding out which it is.
Sincerely,
Marie
Associate Editor, Veritas
- ----------------------------------------------
Veritas was last updated on 13 March 1998.
Updates ceased because of loss of several key
volunteer staff and contributors. New volunteers
are working on a major update of the site which
is expected to be done by June 2001. The site
continues to provide thousands of people with
valuable documented information first exposed
and published by Veritas.
Please accept an invitation to visit our site:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
- ----------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOriooQvhQm1KGzE8EQKyTACglAIV1hQgxUn2OPBDQaM9yLEX3WUAoNVd
UXCABKfsaSEta8a0INiNo6ul
=Vden
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ed Hattaway
It might be of interest to you that the OSA terminal at the Atlanta Org tried to
"dead agent" your site to one of our scientology friends.
My wife had mentioned the veritas site to her. She evidently checked it out and
asked the DSA Atlanta about it.
The DSA told her, according to her letter to us, that the people behind the
Veritas site were tax evaders. She also handed them the OSA flyer on the four,
photos and all!
Just thought you would like to know!
Ed Hattaway
In article <16ac0cdc791a8df1...@anonymous.poster>,
squi...@echelon.alias.net says...
Chris Owen
<squi...@echelon.alias.net> writes
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>Dear Mr. Owen,
>
>On Tuesday, 20 March 2001, in a messaged identified as
><U2HyJMAr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, you wrote:
>
>>In article <3ab71...@news2.lightlink.com>, Nelson
>><nels...@powersurfr.com> writes
>>>Does anyone know of the offical dead agent pack about the Veritas
>>>site and it's people? I mean aside from "they are all nuts"?
>>
>>Nelson, for the first time ever, you and I are in complete
>>agreement...
>
>I understood Mr. Nelson's comment to be in reference to efforts by The
>Church of Scientology International's Office of Special Affairs (OSA),
>and by their parent corporation, Church of Spiritual Technology (CST),
>to "dead agent" the Veritas web site. Just as Mr. Nelson accurately
>pointed out, the best they've been able to do is make vapid statements
>like we're all "nuts," or "loons." The reason for their impotence is
>because we don't have any lies on our web site for them to "dead
>agent," and they've failed in their efforts to censor us on legal
>grounds because our facts are trebly verified and confirmed before
>they go onto our site.
I go by the statements of the Veritas representatives whom I've seen on
this ng, principally Nomen Nescio and "Nigel". If I was feeling kind
I'd call them tendentious; more bluntly, they're howling loonies with
acute paranoia.
Now, how loony do you have to be to be regarded as loony by both pro-
and anti-CoS posters? That's *loony*.
Nomen Nescio
<jjuioKA$ynu6...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I go by the statements of the Veritas representatives whom I've seen on
>this ng, principally Nomen Nescio
Hey, dumbshit - use a credit card if you have to, but buy a clue: "Nomen
Nescio" is the generic anon nick for anybody posting through dizum.
Duh.
<*I'm* Nomen Nescio.>
[No, *I'm* Nomen Nescio!]
(No!!! *I'm* Nomen Nescio!!!)
Twit.
>Now, how loony do you have to be to be regarded as loony by both pro-
>and anti-CoS posters? That's *loony*.
Well, hey! You just made the cut, bright boy! Take a Big Win[tm].
The Real Honest-to-god no-bullshit Nomen Nescio
Part of the International Veritas Conspiracy of Chris Owen
c/o Veritas HQ, Area 51
Nomen Nescio
You aren't the Real Honest-to-god no bullshit Nomen Nescio,
liar.
I am the only Nomen Nescio. You are the anti-Nomen. Or the
Anti-Nescio. Either way, it's not "a good thing." You will
never be on Martha Stewart.
And the Veritas conspiracy I run to torment Chris Owen is
a galactic conspiracy - not a puny international conspiracy.
Xenu was just a decoy to hide the true ruler of the galaxy -
Me, Nomen Nescio.
I rule from my palace on Planet Veritas. That would be -
Me, Nomen Nescio.
I alone am responsible for all UFOs. They carry my army of
Veritas conspirators to Teegeack to do the bidding of -
Me, Nomen Nescio.
Our purpose is not the takeover of Teegeack. Our purpose is -
To constipate Chris Owen.
Somehow, he found out the deep dark secret about -
Me, Nomen Nescio.
We do not yet know how he uncovered the truth of this galactic
Veritas conspiracy, but my top Intelligence Agent, Ace o' Clubs,
thinks it was "with the help of the US Navy." He says that Owen
probably asked somebody in the US Navy a question, AND THEY
ANSWERED HIM! Damn them!
But it will do Owen no good! He is my new Job!
We have long ago succeeded in making him stupid and paranoid.
Constipation is inevitable!
Resistance is futile! So are laxatives!
And The ARSCC Librarian is my concubine! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Make all donation checks payable to -
Me, Nomen Nescio.
The Great Nomen Nescio the First and Only
Supreme Ruler of Planet Veritas and All-Around Nice Grey
c/o #162-Z, Village Mail Call
Nomen Nescio
Dear Nomen Nescio,
My name is Avid Parquet. I represent Nomen Nescio[TM], exclusive licensee
of the trademark Nomen Nescio[TM], which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Nomen Nescio[TM], the holder of the trademark. If you didn't understand
that it is because you are stupider than a lawyer.
It has been brought to our attention by a Chris Owen that you have
illegally used the trademark Nomen Nescio[TM] in your name (Nomen Nescio)
in such a way that "Nomen Nescio" could be confused with the trademark
Nomen Nescio[TM], causing potential belief in the mind of the public that
Nomen Nescio[TM] is the same Nomen Nescio that you claim to be, to the
detriment of my client, Nomen Nescio[TM], holder and exclusive licensor of
the trademark Nomen Nescio[TM] to the exclusive licensee, Nomen Nescio[TM],
d.b.a "Nomen Nescio" and "The Nomen Nescio Library"[TM].
Your offending usage of said trademark is specified in the message included
herein specifically as though it were included herein:
>Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> in message
><jjuioKA$ynu6...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I go by the statements of the Veritas representatives whom I've
>>seen on this ng, principally Nomen Nescio
>
>Hey, dumbshit - use a credit card if you have to, but buy a clue:
>"Nomen Nescio" is the generic anon nick for anybody posting through
>dizum.
>
>Duh.
>
> <*I'm* Nomen Nescio.>
>
> [No, *I'm* Nomen Nescio!]
>
> (No!!! *I'm* Nomen Nescio!!!)
>
>Twit.
>
>>Now, how loony do you have to be to be regarded as loony by
>>both pro-and anti-CoS posters? That's *loony*.
>
>Well, hey! You just made the cut, bright boy! Take a Big
>Win[tm].
>
>The Real Honest-to-god no-bullshit Nomen Nescio
>Part of the International Veritas Conspiracy of Chris Owen c/o Veritas
>HQ, Area 51
We would also like to point out specifically that you violated our
trademark Nomen Nescio[TM] no less than five times. Our penalty fee is
$6,000,000 per count. (Chris Owen's single violation is forgiven for
ratting you out to us, for which he will get 10%.)
We additionally would like to point out that you also are in violation of
our exclusive licensee's exclusive license from the exclusive licensor of
the registered trademarks Duh[TM], Conspiracy[TM], Big Win[tm][TM], and
[tm][TM].
This makes you Fair Game[TM] unless you remit $54,000,000, pronto. One
half of all proceeds will be devoted toward buying Chris Owen a clue.
Sincerely,
Avid Parquet
Something for Kendrick and Helena to walk all over
Dave Bird
<nob...@dizum.com> writes:
>Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> in message
><jjuioKA$ynu6...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I go by the statements of the Veritas representatives whom I've seen on
>>this ng, principally Nomen Nescio
>
>Nescio" is the generic anon nick for anybody posting through dizum.
I know that; hell, I could post THIS through dizum and say I'm nomen
nescio too. But statements from Veritas Loons to this newsgroup
very frequently come through dizum, and probably form a majority
of posts through dizum to this newsgroup.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Veritas
Hash: SHA1
Dear Mr. Owen,
On Thursday, 22 March 2001, in a message identified as
<jjuioKA$ynu6...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> you wrote:
>I go by the statements of the Veritas representatives whom I've seen
>on this ng, principally Nomen Nescio and "Nigel".
No one is a "Veritas representative" unless they post using the
Veritas PGP key that I'm signing this message with. Period.
So I'll ask you, again, to extend to me the courtesy and decency of
answering the questions I asked you, which you completely avoided in
your "reply." Here is the post again containing the questions I asked
you that you didn't answer:
>I understood Mr. Nelson's comment to be in reference to efforts by
>The Church of Scientology International's Office of Special Affairs
>(OSA), and by their parent corporation, Church of Spiritual
>Technology (CST), to "dead agent" the Veritas web site. Just as Mr.
>Nelson accurately pointed out, the best they've been able to do is
>make vapid statements like we're all "nuts," or "loons." The reason
>for their impotence is because we don't have any lies on our web site
>for them to "dead agent," and they've failed in their efforts to
>censor us on legal grounds because our facts are trebly verified and
>confirmed before they go onto our site.
>
Still waiting for an actual response to my questions.
Sincerely,
Marie
Associate Editor, Veritas
- ----------------------------------------------
Veritas was last updated on 13 March 1998.
Updates ceased because of loss of several key
volunteer staff and contributors. New volunteers
are working on a major update of the site which
is expected to be done by June 2001. The site
continues to provide thousands of people with
valuable documented information first exposed
and published by Veritas.
Please accept an invitation to visit our site:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
- ----------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOr/kqgvhQm1KGzE8EQIQzwCgp/osA3o6vHIhCTBNBDnX86YonT8AoLhk
0mik8IMulHL7e8cE4yDSOs7Z
=VtdP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>Dear Mr. Owen,
Allow me. ;-)
If it were me, I would wager "B".
Sorry.
Of course I could say that easily, after having been identified as
"OSA operative" by "Dorian". Still, I do not think that all loons are
necesserily $cientologists. Or vice versa. (Though the term "vice"
comes to mind readily when I read the word "scientology". Strange,
isn't it?)
I, myself am crazy enough to have considerable faith in occams razor.
And my beliefs (along with my BS-meter) are what's keeping me on a
reasonably straight path...
Groeten,
Boudewijn.