**Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

[shelley thomson]

**Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
the shortcomings of the professional news media.

Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.

Mail, articles and comment may be directed to <stho...@netcom.com>.
Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the
following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the
net immediately.

**Biased Journalism** Volume 2, issue 16 August 22, 1996.

Contents: Dipping at the Well of Justice: August 2, 1996;
Inside FACTNet; The Devil in the Details [Words of Art];
Xenu on Tour [ARSCC field report]; September picket
information [end of Xenu file]; Rodent Report
[a gossip column]

Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**!

Late News: Tom Klemesrud, sysop of support.com, has settled with
RTC for $50,000. The settlement, which was mediated by his insurance
company, includes no admission of liability. Netcom, sued along
with Klemesrud, recently settled upon undisclosed terms. This leaves
Dennis Erlich standing alone.

1. Dipping at the Well of Justice: San Jose, August 2, 1996

A mild morning promised a hot day. The lemon colored
mist rose up on the hills. A ghost moon hung in the sky. Lemming
lines of commuters thronged the freeways, going nowhere.

By 9:15 in the morning Judge Whyte was already deep into
a class action case. The dramatis personae of the RTC/Bridge
Publications [church of scientology] vs. the net were already
present. The RTC group had changed their normally dark suits
for an array of light gray and taupe colors. We noticed Warren
McShane in dark gray, however.

Judge Whyte works away at the class action case. It dealt
with apartment occupancy limitations vs. the Fair Housing Act. We
surmised that a luckless family with children had been denied housing
and had sued. Judge Whyte wants to say no to the lawyer: he resists
certifying the class action, but postpones his decision.

The next lawyer has bright golden hair falling down her back
almost to her waist. From the rear she looks strikingly like Alice
in Wonderland, or perhaps Goldilocks. The Judge, a dignified man
who is normally considerate of his litigants, seems to thaw at the
edges. In this instance we have the impression that he doesn't have
to work at it.

[When the lawyer turns around we see that she resembles
Gabrielle, sidekick to the immortal Xena, Warrior Princess.]

The Judge agrees to sign an order and asks her to prepare
it. She leaves, looking happy. The male lawyers swivel their necks
to observe her exit. Nobody says anything for a second.

The next case is a contempt case. The clerk announces it in
an indistinct mutter, as if she is chewing gum. The action is brought
by the IRS, whose attorney, a tall white male in a dark gray suit,
exerts a commanding presence. The defendant is a black male,
impeccably dressed in L.L. Bean casuals. His posture before the Judge
has a military correctness. He is obviously an educated man,
deferential to the court but unafraid of the process.

Having never seen the IRS in court before, we paid heed.
Judge Whyte says that he read the defendant's letter last night. The
letter apparently states that the defendant is not in possession of
any records or documents regarding income. [We gather that this is
an instance of the fabled tax protest actions, endemic among middle
class citizens tired of being picked clean by federal tax collectors.
These actions are based upon little-known legal facts, including the
precise definition of income. We had never expected to see one in
court, but here it is.]

Judge Whyte asks the U.S. attorney to clarify the
defendant's letter. A three-way discussion ensues in which first
the IRS attorney and then the Judge grills the defendant: who
explains that he does odd jobs, has no bank account and keeps
no records at all.

The Judge turns to the U.S. Attorney. "Mr. Moore, what is
your position if he [the defendant] were to say that under oath?"

The attorney responds that "we have 1099's;" the defendant
has received distributions from the Oppenheimer mutual fund and
from Tenali Construction Company. Now he says he has no records
of anything: "what is the source of the funds so that he can
live?" Having said "live" in a way that suggests he would eagerly
suck out the lifeblood of the defendant, the IRS attorney has lost
the PR battle. He goes on to complain that two summons have
been issued, and in February there was an order to show cause.

The defendant calmly replies that he doesn't own a car.
He doesn't have information about his brother. He has answered all
the questions which have been asked of him. If the attorney has
other questions he is here.

Judge Whyte seizes the moment. "Let's do it now." He
instructs the IRS attorney, who looks unhappy, to find a court
reporter and and ask his questions. This is not what the IRS attorney
wanted. He wanted the defendant put in prison until he confessed/
coughed up his missing assets, or his brother's missing assets (an
elusive thread in the discussion). But it will have to do.

The next attorney wants a court order. He draws a deep
breath and starts in on his reasons. Judge Whyte cuts him off. "Do
you want to make some eloquent argument, or do you want to submit it?"
"Er, submit it," the lawyer says, startled. Everyone laughs. "Hand
it up," the Judge says, and reads. Is the other party present? No?
The lawyer walks out with his dissmissal, looking dazed but pleased.

RTC presence has thickened in the public seats. We notice
an RTC helper with glasses and a balding forehead whom we have seen
before. He sports a dark gray suit, well-worn cowboy boots and a
devious vibe. OSA, we inferred.

In another part of the courtroom the dark-haired man with the
sallow face and hawk nose, whom we have seen at all of these hearings,
is identified for us as Mike Sutter. We first saw him sitting next to
Jeff Quiros, who no longer comes to these events. Sutter, reputed to
be David Miscavige's right hand man, was a participant in the abortive
settlement conference with Grady Ward. Rumors posted to the net
said that the church attempted to intimidate Ward, taking his
agreement to attend the conference as a sign of surrender. (Ward,
however, thought that the church's invitation to talk meant that
the church was about to surrender.) The netizen was allegedly
pressured to sign a document accusing Ron Newman, Dave Touretzky
and Dennis Erlich of being the perpetrators of SCAMIZDAT. Ward
responds poorly to intimidation. He refused. The case now
appears headed for a jury trial. [Ward has posted a request to the
net for used law texts to help him prepare. He may be contacted at
<gr...@northcoast.com>]

[Note: at this moment we did not know that Netcom had
concluded a secret settlement with the church, but in retrospect it
is obvious to us that the plaintiffs knew it. Their tension was
palpably lessened. For details of the settlement, see our previous
issue.]

The next issue is complex. The Judge favors a motion to
strike a jury trial. The issue is wrongful termination; the
attorney charges that the company decided to terminate older
employees and spent a year building a record against his client.
A woman, she took medical leave [we sensed that the work environment
contributed to this] and was then terminated. The lawyer
wants to assert federal court claims.

The company attorney, a woman with an abrasive manner,
replies that the plaintiff is making another "backdoor attempt to
get a jury trial."

The Judge and the attorneys engage in a prolonged natter
about rules of procedure. The suit was brought in Santa Cruz,
where when a jury demand is made, a jury trial is automatically
offered. Did you cite this? Judge Whyte asks. The attorney
says he did and provides a copy. The defense attorney replies
that California requires an "express demand" before a jury is
granted. If the plaintiff is filing in this court, he is
obligated to be aware of the rules of this court. Judge
Whyte withholds a decision. We sense that the issue is not cut
and dried.

Meanwhile, H. Keith Henson has arrived in a classy
navy blue suit and taken up a position on the right side of
the public seats. A couple of rows behind we notice Grady Ward,
looking uncommonly spiffy in a nicely tailored blue tweed jacket.
Ward is wearing his Mona Lisa smile.

The anxious bickering of attorneys calls our attention.
It appears that the defense attorney, a young man who is trying
to represent several clients, filed an appearance on behalf of
the entire group (11 individuals and entities) but has only been
able to make an arrangement with 7 of them. The plaintiff's
attorney, an attractive woman, seems to enjoy his predicament.
She refuses to dismiss anyone from the suit. "You're stuck
with it until you file a motion," Judge Whyte says to him.
They leave: he looks embarrassed and she looks delighted.

The next case is a patent action. The issues are
obscure, but we suddenly notice Judge Whyte saying "...while his
argument is somewhat technical and frankly somewhat stupid..."
The Judge suddenly sounds tired. [It's those goddamn intellectual
property thetans again! no! no!]

"...patent infringement claim..." the words hang in the
air. We happen to glance at the left side of the courtroom, rear
row, and notice that the row is occupied by Milgrim, his partner
Hart and Warren McShane. They are *riveted*. [It occurs to us that
one can patent a process. We have a momentary bad sense of deja
vu.]

In the front row, the OSA dude in the gray suit is psyching
the Judge. He nods approvingly when Whyte speaks. His Tony Lamas
show lots of wear.

The case rolls on. To sour looks from the opposing attorneys,
a gray-haired woman lawyer with queenly composure is asking for a writ
of attachment. What case says a court can issue a writ of attachment
when the court doesn't have venue? Judge Whyte asks quizzically.
"No case says you can't," she rejoins. Under Rule 64 all a court
has to have is jurisdiction. You can issue the writ. We need
immediate relief. California statutes and Rule 64 read together:
the writ should issue.

This goes on for a bit. It develops that the attorney is
trying to get the writ of attachment against a partner of the company
which [we infer] had been successfully sued earlier for patent
infringement. The case was filed in San Francisco but was assigned
to San Jose. Sounding wistful, Judge Whyte asks the attorney if she
knows why. "Perhaps the assignment clerk thought that a patent case
should go to Judge Whyte," she says archly. Everyone laughs. Whyte
remarks that at that time cases were assigned district-wide, and
"my number was up."

The relationship between the company and its infringing
partner is explored. The plaintiff attorney asserts that the
relationship is a continuing one. Opposing lawyers bristle. When
they get their turn they argue that there has been only incidental
contact between the companies; nothing in the record establishes
contacts within this district. There was no transshipment of
equipment...

We think she got the order, but our attention flagged at
the critical moment. The abrasive female lawyer from an earlier case
sits down next to another woman lawyer in the audience. "He's still
on an earlier calendar? Jeezus!"

Then Grady Ward's case is called.

The parties introduce themselves. "Grady Ward in pro per."

Tom Hogan and Helena Kobrin stand for the plaintiff. Hogan
introduces Roger Milgrim and James Kennedy, whom he wishes to attach
to both Ward and Henson cases.

Judge Whyte agrees--it is merely a formality--and then says:
"The number of attorneys is starting to get out of hand and I'm
starting to get concerned about it. Particularly when you have a pro
per I am starting to have some intimidation concerns." Standing with
his back to us, Grady Ward somehow looks brave and alone.

With respect to the counterclaim in conspiracy, section 244,
to violate rights, doesn't create a private right of action. Our
view suggests that Mr. Ward is complaining about a malicious
prosecution. Trespass is a state claim. The Judge is dismissing
Ward's countersuit. He is not passing judgment on Ward's claims,
he states, but this is not the right court.

With respect to whether the injunction should be modified
or dissolved, the question turns on the trade secret issue. Judge
Whyte "is not prepared to give a final decision on that but will
do so shortly." "I have concern regarding whether there is an
arguable trade secret claim," the Judge says.

He proceeds to a tentative ruling. He is going to dismiss
Ward's counterclaims without prejudice (except the section 241
claim) and submit the issue with respect to the dismissal or
modification of the Preliminary Injunction and motion to
amend counterclaim. He wants a new counterclaim.

Grady Ward says that he will relinquish his current
counterclaim and amend it as a RICO action. Judge Whyte gives
him some procedural advice: he has to file a motion to
amend with the specific counterclaim attached to it. Ward
says he will.

Roger Milgrim wants to be heard for the Plaintiff. The
copyright issue is fully resolved by Mr. Ward's position, he says
in an oily fashion. While many of the analytic matters are common
(in Ward and Henson cases)- he is prepared to go on at length.

Judge Whyte stops him. What's been published is different
in the two cases, he says.

Milgrim alludes to the posting of NOTS on the net for 3
separate days - then they were discovered on a "nonindexed site."
The injunction has copyright components and should not be altered
with reference to any decision about trade secrets.

"In very general terms, I agree" says Judge Whyte.

"I am only under injunction with regard to unpublished NOTS,"
Grady Ward says.

"That is not correct," Whyte replies. The NOTS documents
that were published were removed from the trade secret part of the
injunction that prohibits any use, but remain in the paragraph
dealing with fair use.

Ward: "I have no problem with fair use."

Whyte then says something we wrote down but had trouble
decoding afterward. We think he is telling Ward that trade
secrets aside, Ward could not publish the entirety of the
unpublished NOTS on the net.

Milgrim tried again. There is in this particular case an
added issue - probability -likelihood - possiblity. [of future
posting of secret documents by copyright terrorist Ward]

Judge Whyte turns to Ward. "If evidence shows that you did
the posting, you can't benefit from it," he says seriously.

Ward: "Ok, but there is no evidence."

A case management conference is ordained, and the scene
suddenly dissolves into chaos. Whyte magically vanishes from the
bench. Everyone talks to everyone.

Then it is Henson's turn.

Judge Whyte: with respect to the counterclaims, you can't
base a civil act on Section 241 of Title 18. And your other claims-
in essence, plaintiffs have been conducting a malicious prosecution
and some things that go beyond. You have to wait for a favorable
decision in this case. The Judge mutters his way through "infliction
of emotional distress and other state claims."

The issues in this case are: is RTC entitled to copyright
protection? Is RTC entitled to trade scecret protection? Have you
violated them?

Henson responds by asserting wire fraud. A RICO action, in
federal court. [there is a palpable chill from the RTC section of
the audience]

Judge Whyte: with reference to criminality, the only one
you have referred to is NOTS 34. They natter for a bit, and the
Judge says "you are allowed to make fair use of NOTS 34."

Henson: can I take it to the FDA?

Judge Whyte: I can't give legal advice. [He then goes into
a smooth circumlocution in which it becomes crystal clear that he is
definitely not saying no to Henson's question.]

The issue of NOTS 34 does not die quite so easily. The NOTS
document was not in existence at the time of Judge Gesell's decision,
the Judge points out. A court order should prevent them from doing
things in the future, Henson says. JW: Gesell's decision was
specific. KH: It also dealt with claims that they were forbidden to
make.

Judge Whyte gives up. You can file an Amicus Curiae brief,
he informs Henson, but it must be in the case that it is in. Submit
the brief in that case. [He means, the brief must be filed in the
FDA case.]

The Judge is not through. "Let me say again that I get mail
by volume on this. I cannot consider mail in this case. If I am
going to consider anything, it must be properly filed."

Henson wants the last word. If I file the letter and NOTS 34,
would it be better done under seal?

Judge: yes. "With reference to trade secrets, I will be
making an order in your and Ward's case. And Dennis Erlich."
Referring to Milgrim's earlier statements, Whyte quickly says that
"there are some differences between cases, but also some issues in
common," deftly depriving Milgrim of the opportunity to launch a
filibuster.

Henson: uh, can I make fair use of NOTS 34?

Whyte: yes. Fair use. A modification of the Preliminary
Injunction is not necessary. [<phew>, the observer intuits. A
prolonged horrid hassle over the PI has been avoided. For an
instant the Judge looks so grateful that we wonder how he really
feels about Roger Milgrim.]

Henson: at least two other NOTS make medical claims. (He
goes on to say that he hasn't read them but has seen posted discussion
of their contents. He can't read and report these NOTS [to the FDA]
under the trade secrets provision, or can he?

The Judge ducks the issue without effort. "Nothing prevents
you from going to an agency and saying something like 'I haven't
seen this, but my understanding is...'"

Henson (unhappily): I see.

Milgrim (who does not use complete sentences, apparently
going on the theory that people only hear *certain words* anyway):
"...beguiling simplicity of lodging information with a
federal agency where it is publicly available...you described a way
he could do this.

Judge Whyte: I didn't describe any way.

Milgrim: NOTS 34. Trade secrets. You preliminary ruled
that it is not a trade secret but we maintain that it is. Improper
to disclose it by indirection. The lodging of a document in a
public file [invites transgressions].

Judge Whyte: under fair use, the information could be
conveyed "in a proper way." I wouldn't know how to tell someone
how to do that. [trans.: it's up to the judge's discretion]
"In a proper way makes logical sense," Whyte says earnestly.

Milgrim: "were the document in its entirety lodged.."
He switches to "Judge Gesell's opinion held...a religious matter
is beyond the scrutiny of a secular authority." He turns to
accuse Henson of trying to make the document available for
publicy copying. "We would consider that a flagrant violation."

Henson (indicating the RTC lawyers, at that moment bunched
angrily around their table): I would be glad to take advice from
this squad of lawyers.

Milgrim (suppressively): We'll work with him.

A recess is declared.

Everyone gets up and talks, but our observer is fascinated
by the display in the front of the room. Judge Whyte is long gone--
again we wonder how he does that; is there a trapdoor under the
bench?--and Roger Milgrim is talking to Keith Henson. The distance
between them is just a fraction wider than a good punch would carry.
Milgrim makes warding motions with his hands, then folds them in
prayer, looking like a large penguin. We take note of Helena Kobrin,
who is wearing a long white cotton dress with a black jacket and black
trim: it has a subtle sailor suit presence. Warren McShane and a
burly gray-haired man natter on the sidelines. Tom Hogan is in
a rumpled gray suit looking disinterested. In the audience netizens
chatter about several different NOTS packs floating around the net
and the new NOTS Scholars Research Page. [http://www.cs.cmu/~dst/NOTs]

The Judge is back. The clerk calls Grady Ward, definitely
mumbling this time.

Whyte announces his decision: to continue the conference for
60 days, during which pleadings will be finalized and disclosures
made. Discovery can continue. Then we will know the aspect of
the thing and we can schedule the case.

A telephonic conference is arranged for Grady Ward; this does
not preclude Ward from attending hearings in person, the Judge notes.

Tom Hogan gets into the act. "It is of great concern" what
Grady Ward puts in the court file. He has made references to Madame
Kobrin... [he can't bring himself to mention her nickname] would you
please advise Grady Ward to treat us with respect?

Whyte: he's been polite to me.

Hogan (complaining): We get filings off the net before we
are served! And there are references on the net to settlement
discussions, which should be confidential.

Judge Whyte (dryly): comment to apply to both sides. Now
a discussion with respect to settlement should not appear in
pleadings. Under Magistrate Judge Infante's rules, settlement
discussions should be filed under seal. They should not be filed
in court. Any document subject to the injunction should be filed
under seal.

Whyte lectures the parties briefly, with reference to
treating each other professionally. He is concerned with documents
filed in court. What is said privately or in an article, is
their option and their risk depending on what they say.

[In a subtle way this is a rebuke to RTC for Hogan's
handling of the deposition and the behavior of the plaintiffs
during the settlement talks. The Judge has basically said that
in matters outside the courtroom Ward can say whatever he
wants provided he stays away from the material covered by the
injunction.]

Keith Henson's case is called. Hogan gives Henson a
wary look.

Judge Whyte announces that he wants to do the same thing
in Henson's case as he did in Ward's: a 60 day continuance, etc.

Henson: I can commence discovery. Thanks very much. [For
this he gets a dirty look from Hogan]

Hogan: Henson has proposed discovery beyond the bounds of
legitimate discovery. Hogan wants to schedule a discovery
conference before Magistrate Judge Infante.

Henson: I agree to that.

Judge Whyte: I will order a discovery conference. Go and
get a date. And don't suggest to him that I said he'd see you
today.

And the hearing is done.

In front of the courtroom (the Judge is gone) RTC converges
on Keith Henson. They loom over him--Henson is wide rather than
tall, with an athletic bearlike build--and the netizen turns toward
them in an animated way. He _wants_ to confront them. From a
distance the effect is comical. They recoil in disarray as if
he had stamped his foot and shouted "boo!" Henson settles on
Warren McShane. He has raised his voice a little bit, and we can
hear him demanding to know how McShane feels about being sec
checked? How long has it been since McShane had a sec check? Do
you know how they start the sec check? : "I am not auditing
you." McShane looks dismayed and flinches away. Henson turns
in search of other victims.

Meanwhile, someone is talking urgently in our other ear.
An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with
the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
documents!

It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.

A FIRST for **Biased Journalism**: we have photographs to go with
this story. Look for them on Ron Newman's web page at
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/media/

------------------

2. Inside FACTNet

On Monday, August 19 Arnie Lerma posted a public notice:

"Re: Civil Action 95-1107-A RTC vs Lerma

"As of the morning of Tuesday, August 20th,
Arnaldo Lerma hereby dismisses Faegre & Benson, LLP
and Ross DIxon & Masback, LLP as counsel.

"Both firms have been notified of my decision this morning.

"Lerma is proceeding Pro-Se , until new counsel is determined.

For more than a year there have been severe strains behind
the scenes at FACTNet. Board members have been removed one after
another, inevitably after a personality conflict with Lawrence
Wollersheim. Jon Atack, Kim Baker and Jan Merril left or were
dismissed without replacement. As of August 10, the board numbered
only three: Lawrence Wollersheim, Arnie Lerma and Bob Penny.

Lerma's attorneys Faegre & Benson were brought into the
Colorado case to save money and simplify the problem of defending
against several lawsuits. However, Lerma was disenchanted with
the firm's performance in his case--racking up huge fees, but
failing to secure a jury trial--and Wollersheim wanted to use the
Colorado case as a platform for a broad-band attack on the church.
Both men were fiercely impatient with the slow pace of legal
proceedings.

Bob Penny maintained that the case should be handled as a
copyright case. He opposed widening the issue. Faegre and Benson
preferred Penny's approach. Wollersheim became increasingly
impatient with Penny. Interpersonal difficulties developed
between F&B and Wollersheim. Eventually Jeff Reiman was hired to act
as a mediator between Wollersheim and Tom Kelly (the lead attorney
with F&B).

Every free-for-all needs a catalyst: in this case, money.
FACTNet's first million dollars of legal insurance was expended
fighting the Lerma case, which they lost. Coregis, the insurance
provider, had committed to a second million dollars but refused
to provide it. [The reasons for this are not yet available to us.]
FACTNet sued Coregis and won. Coregis prepared to hand over the
check, in the amount of $925,000.

Unhappily, there were strings. Coregis wanted to pay the
various pre-existing claims on the money and set aside a portion for
Penny. Jeff Reiman, who was also owed money, proposed that the funds
be placed in a trust account in his care for disbursement. This was
the last straw for Wollershiem, who fired him on the spot, in front
of the magistrate judge who was in charge of the insurance settlement
talks. Wollersheim wanted the entire check turned over to FACTNet.

Coregis was not willing to do this, and negotiations
collapsed. As of this writing we believe they are still on hold.

Faegre and Benson conferred on the subject, and quickly
returned a decision to Wollersheim: they were leaving. They filed
a sealed brief with the court. In an unusual move, the judge
allowed them to withdraw. This took place only two weeks before the
FACTNet defendants were required to file an answer to a Motion for
Summary Judgment by the church.

The next day, August 12, Bob Penny received a telephone call
from Lawrence Wollersheim stating that there would be an emergency
board meeting by phone in ten minutes. The telephone call was
very brief. Penny listened silently as Wollersheim told him that
he and Lerma were voting him off the board.

The reason given in the meeting was that Penny disagreed
with Wollersheim's views of how the copyright case should be argued.

On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc
session on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had
been removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental
capability due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed
FACTNet in jeopardy. Fellow directors can be held liable for his
actions, if he has any impairment that would interfere with his
duties, Lerma said. We sorta had no choice.

Natives of the channel asked pertinent questions. How did
Penny feel about leaving? [Lerma ignored this question] What about
the insurance coverage? "It doesn't affect insurance coverage in any
way...for alleged acts or omissions during his tenure." Doesn't this
sort of abandon Bob to the wolves, legally speaking? [exact quote
from a prominent netizen] "Just stop that speculation right now,"
Lerma said.

Lerma: "well I suppose i'm in for lots o flak on this one, but
I assure you it was brought to our attention by our corporate
counsel that there was a risk...that should be avoided... due to his
health, we didnt want it..."

Net: i'm just worried about the future of Bob's legal case. I
don't want to see him forced into a settlement in his condition.

Lerma: it doesnt affect his coverage in any way...

Net: it may not affect his insurance coverage, but what about
his representation by F&B?

Net: what about his financial status? Was he receiving any
compensation from factnet?

[Lerma did not respond.]

As to whether evicting Penny from the board was suggested by
their corporate counsel, we doubt that the advice came from Faegre and
Benson. Bob Penny agreed with F&B on case strategy. But by this
time, inspired by the prospect of Coregis funds, Wollersheim had
already invited other attorneys (notably Graham Berry) to participate
in FACTNet litigation. We surmise that someone other than F&B
suggested that things might go better without Bob Penny on the board.

Bob Penny's ouster did not affect the size of the recovery
from Coregis. Penny was covered for acts and omissions during his
tenure, as Lerma correctly said. Instead it deprived him of any
authority over how the Coregis funds would be spent. His removal
also made him a potential target of lawsuits by the remaining board
members.

Sources state that Wollersheim has now accused Penny of
performing the actions that brought on the copyright lawsuit
without the consent of the rest of the board. [This includes
putting copyrighted materials on FACTNet CDs and so forth.]
The accusation surfaced in an acrimonious conference involving
Wollersheim, Lerma, Penny, Faegre & Benson lawyers and Graham
Berry (acting for Wollersheim). We understand that the idea of
suing Faegre and Benson for malpractice was brought up at this
conference. (Faegre and Benson withdrew immediately after this
meeting.) During this conference Penny, under instructions from
Wollersheim, said nothing. A short time later he was removed
from the board.

Will FACTNet sue Penny? We think it may. An effort to palm
off all liability onto Penny might not succeed in the copyright case,
but it might have the virtue of giving FACTNet an excuse not to pay
out any of the Coregis check for Penny's legal expenses. In best
case, FACTNet could wind up with all the money and Bob Penny could
wind up with all the liability.

Similarly, suing Faegre and Benson might provide a means to
withhold payment of their claimed legal fees and prevent Coregis from
paying part of the settlement directly to F&B.

Bob Penny was concerned about the conduct of the copyright
case. He asked Faegre and Benson whether they would continue to
represent him. They refused, citing their previous representation of
the board as a whole. They were too deeply involved with all parties
to represent either side in a conflict. This was a blow to Penny, who
now must start looking for new attorneys for the copyright case and
worry about the potential lawsuit from FACTNet.

On August 19 Steve Fishman made a post to ars in which he
revealed that he had had dinner with Bob Penny and friends. During
this dinner we believe he was told the true state of affairs, but
the post conveyed a quite different impression:

"By the way, this week I visited with Margery Wakefield and Bob Penny
in Colorado, putting the final touches on my motion to permanently
unseal the upper level materials, and working with F.A.C.T.net
officials. Bob Penny, as many of you know, is one of the Founding
Board of Directors of F.A.C.T.net, and Margery Wakefield is the author
of the Road to Xenu. We had a great time out there in the Denver
rockies and got a lot accomplished."

In reality, we believe that Fishman had been promised some
funds from the Coregis settlement and was in Colorado to close the
deal. The discovery that Penny was off the board and Coregis had not
handed over the check could not have been welcome news. We imagine
that Fishman quickly decided to seek an accommodation with
Wollersheim.

On Monday Arnie Lerma announced that he had dismissed Faegre
and Benson, LLP and Ross Dixon and Masback, LLP as his attorneys.
He is acting pro se for the time being. The decks are cleared for
a new set of lawyers and a new wave of lawsuits.

We await further developments with interest.

Summary:

FACTNet is in disarray. In the most likely scenario, based
on what we know, FACTNet will sue Bob Penny and refuse to pay some or
all of Penny's legal expenses. Bob Penny will have to find lawyers
to defend himself against both the church and FACTNet. FACTNet has
will probably file a malpractice suit against Faegre and Benson.
Presumably F&B will countersue for payment of their fees. Meanwhile
Wollersheim and Lerma will assemble a new legal team headed by Graham
Berry and undertake a complete change of strategy. New lawsuits will
be filed as soon as Coregis funds are available. We do not expect
Arnie Lerma's pro per status to last long; we infer that it is an
interim measure pending a reorganization of FACTNet's legal resources.
The Coregis funds, when released, will be spent at the sole discretion
of Lawrence Wollersheim.

Short summary:

Two words. Foot bullet.

[Note: this analysis was written on the basis of information
supplied to us by anonymous sources. We apologize for errors and
omissions, and will be happy to review the matter based upon
additional information.]

Our misgivings concern the apparent injustice to Bob Penny and
the doubtful wisdom of changing lawyers in midstream. After this
performance FACTnet may have difficulty finding persons to sit on
its board. With respect to Bob Penny, the possibility that he might
actually be sued by FACTNet is one we would gladly see laid to rest.

-------------

3. The Devil in the Details: Motion to Dismiss vs. Summary Judgment

A reader offered to help word clear some legal terms for
us. Here is his letter:

"I appreciate the candor with which you preface your non-
lawyer's legal analysis. Too many lawyers need to do the same thing ;)

"...just so that you understand something about federal
procedure and Judge Whyte's dilemma:

"A motion to dismiss a case can be granted only if there is no
possible set of facts consistent with the complaint that will allow
the plaintiff to obtain relief from the court. Under the federal
rules, the complaint only needs to provide notice, not detailed
statements of fact, except that a little bit more detail is required
for fraud. For example, the Clams would "state a cause of action"
(lawyerese for "immune from dismissal") if some hypothetical set of
facts would prove that, say, Grady Ward was indeed Scamizdat. Grady's
protests to the contrary are totally irrelevant on a motion to
dismiss. The clams can claim the existence of a conspiracy to raise
the entheta levels of all U.S. government officials by fluoridating
drinking water, and it can't be dismissed.

"Summary judgment, on the other hand, happens AFTER THE FACTS HAVE
BEEN FOUND. It is granted on a much lower standard: that no
reasonable trier of fact (juror) could come to a different conclusion
based upon the evidence presented. The judge looks at all the
evidence and decides whether the jury needs to be called. For
example, if there was no evidence available to the clams that there
was a conspiracy, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment,
because a reasonable juror could not conclude that there was such a
conspiracy without evidence. In Grady's case, this is where he gets
to protest "I'm not Scamizdat, and you can't prove it anyway."

--T. Rex
---------

4. ARSCC Field Report -- found folded around a trout in the mailbox

FIRST PUBLIC APPEARANCE IN 75 MILLION YEARS:

Xenu Kicks Off World Tour in Michigan

ANN ARBOR - July 27 (SP Straightwire). On the first stop of his Grand
Tour of the Planet, Lord Xenu, former head of the Galactic Federation
and star of the Scientology document "OT III", made a public
appearance at the Ann Arbor Art Fair. Escorted by a four-person PR
team from ARSCC Dissem Div/Great Lakes Section, Lord Xenu was most
pleased by the public acclaim that greeted his Second Coming to
Teegeeack (Earth).

The art fair is an annual event that attracts thousands of people from
around the country: artists, craftsmen, and a sprinkling of musicians
and political activists. There is a special "non-profit section" with
booths espousing all sorts of philosophies: socialism, libertarianism,
the Hillary Clinton fan club, a group opposed to circumcision, a group
opposed to abortion, Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International,
Muslims, Krishnas, Eckists, and of course, the Hubbard Dianetics
Foundation. The following is part of a report to ARSCC filed by the
Dissem Div's Art Fair I/C:

================================================================

ARSCC knew from prior intelligence that Scientology would be trolling
for raw meat at the art fair. It then became apparent that this would
be the ideal first venue for Xenu to get out and meet his public.

Xenu's head was a rubber space alien mask with huge, bulbous, almond-
shaped eyes, deep purple in color. The mask had a silver mesh back
so the wearer's entire head was concealed. He looked quite disturbing
as he waved to the crowd, even though he was wearing a friendly
nametag that said "Hi! I'm Xenu". Xenu wore a blue robe, a
space-alien collar of blue metallic material with a conical neck, a
chest-piece with a silver star, a ray-gun with holster, silver elbow-
length gloves, and soft black leather shoes. (His combat boots were
at the cleaners.) Xenu did not speak; he merely waved at people,
fired his raygun (which made great sound effects), and stopped to
shake hands with every little kid who crossed his path, just
like Mickey Mouse at Disneyland.

Five ARSCC members participated in this event. The role of Xenu was
played by M, who had previous experience working in an animal costume
for a local business in Ann Arbor. The original plan had called for
a mime, but none could be located; M's performance, however, was first
rate. The second team member, J, had the role of Xenu's bodyguard,
because we were a little worried about being hassled (or even
assaulted) by the clams. J is 6'3" and wore dark sunglasses; he did
his job very well. He stayed close to M all the time, which made M
feel safe enough to concentrate on playing Xenu with maximum
enthusiasm.

The third and fourth members of the entourage were R and S, who handed
out flyers to anyone who looked interested in this bit of street
theater. Our fifth person, B, was the cameraman. He carried a
camcorder which was to be used to document any harassment that might
occur. He also took lots of crowd reaction shots, which were fun to
review later. Xenu would be in this huge stream of people going one
way, and folks walking the other way would catch a glimpse in passing
and do these hilarious double takes. R and S, who were trailing
behind, would catch these reactions and immediately offer the person
a pair of flyers.

An orange flyer told Xenu's story---quoted straight from OT III---and
gave some highlights of the weird beliefs of Scientology. (Body
thetans; Christ was an implant; etc.) The flip side had an answer
key to the OCA (the free personality test), and a list of web sites
starting with Ron Newman's. Since this was Ann Arbor, we called
special attention to Margery Wakefield's book "The Road to Xenu" being
available on the web; she was recruited right there in town.

The blue flyer, headed "Scientology: End the Harassment", had the more
serious stuff: quotes from the Reader's Digest and TIME Magazine
articles, the "lawsuit is to harass" quote, some bits about harassment
of Paulette Cooper and Margery Wakfield, the "fair game" order, and a
mention of the cult's current raids and lawsuits against critics on
the Internet, with a list of URLs. We handed out the flyers in pairs
to everyone who'd take one. Copies will be available on a web page
soon.

J, R, S, and B were wearing identical gray t-shirts with the 1991
TIME Magazine cover ("Scientology: the Cult of Greed") on the front,
and "DIANETICS CULT SCAM" on the back. Because they kept close to M,
this created the impression that there was a crowd around the space
alien, which made him more interesting to passersby. Also, a lot of
folks read the t-shirts and got a laugh out of them. In some cases
they walked up and asked for flyers.

Unlike the other nonprofit groups, the Scientologists didn't have an
actual booth at the fair, just a table. Hence the boys from the org
had to work in bright sunlight while the rest of the pitchmen relaxed
in the shade. The evening before, three team members briefly visited
the table right around closing time. The Scientologists had been
demonstrating their e-meter and handing out tickets to a free
screening of their latest propaganda film, "Orientation". The team
spoke with a young clam who tried to sell them a Dianetics starter
kit. He was a typical org staffer: young (mid 20s), hadn't gone
clear himself yet, but was convinced that Dianetics was wonderful
stuff and assured us it worked 100% of the time. He gave J, S, and
B free tickets to see Orientation back at the org, which they gladly
accepted. When he saw their interest in his wares, he even offered to
unpack his e-meter, which he had just put away, to give them a demo,
but they said they didn't want to put him to any trouble; they'd come
back tomorrow. And they did....

The next day, as the team of five was making its way through the art
fair crowd, entertaining people and distributing flyers, we ran into
our salesclam, who was heading in the opposite direction distributing
tickets to his film. R took one. M, who hadn't been present the
night before, walked right up to him in full costume and was handed a
ticket. Then Mr. salesclam recognized J and S, who had spoken with
him the previous evening, and greeted them warmly. A few seconds
later the t-shirts registered, and perhaps he saw the "Hi! I'm Xenu"
nametag on M's chest. He got this confused look on his face and
snatched Xenu's ticket back! He also took back the ticket he had
given to R. Then he said to S, "What are you doing? This is not
good." S said something noncommittal, R chimed in with a remark about
Scientology being a religious cult, and Mr. Clam got really agitated.
He started shouting "Dianetics works! Scientology is the fastest
growing religion in the world; how can it be a cult?"

This made for great theater; all the parents who had been watching
Xenu entertain their kids now saw their friendly space alien being
hassled by an outraged Scientologist. Where would *your* sympathies
lie?

S offered the clam a copy of the flyers, which he refused to take.
Since Xenu was moving on, S moved to keep up, and Mr. Clam loudly
complained "Why are you running away? Why won't you talk to me?"
Whereupon S said with honest enthusiasm, "It's okay. You can come
with us!" (S really wanted the guy to keep on ranting; he was
putting on a great show.) But Mr. Clam thought better of the offer
and decided to go his own way. He did, however, give R another
ticket to the movie, perhaps hoping to save one of these sorry
suppressives in spite of themselves.

Finally we made our way to the nonprofits section, where we met the
most clueless clam we had ever seen. Xenu walked right up and waved
to him, even whispered a few words to him, and this clam had no idea
what he was looking at. He was busy touting Dianetics to a somewhat
skeptical couple. Xenu caught the male customer's eye, pointed to the
clam, then made a circle beside his own head with his finger, the
Earth-man's sign for "nut case". The guy laughed; the clam kept up
his sales pitch. Then Xenu spun S around so the guy could read the
back of S's t-shirt, and he laughed again. He happily accepted a pair
of flyers and was delighted when S pointed out the answer key to the
Dianetics personality test on the back ("Your Guide to Instance
Mental Health"). With all five of us crowding up to watch the clam's
sales spiel, passersby could see nothing but a wall of t-shirt backs
saying "DIANETICS CULT SCAM". So we moved on. We did not want to
be guilty of harassing the clams, or of blocking access to their
table.

We spent about two hours working the crowd and handing out close to
200 pairs offlyers. We made one more pass by the Dianetics table but
not much happened; the clueless clam still had no idea what we were
doing. The original spokesclam had returned as well, and he
grudgingly acknowledged our presence. He began speaking loudly about
how Dianetics was a best-selling book. S decided to be helpful and
asked, "How long was it on the bestseller list? About a year, wasn't
it?" The clam was taken aback by this preclear origination, but
agreed that S was probably correct. As we were about to move on, the
spokesclam insisted that S acknowledge that Dianetics works. S was
happy to oblige. "Yes, it works", which elicited an abrupt and
stern "Thank you!" Wow, that TR 2 nearly took S's head off! (S
reflects that of course Dianetics works. It made Hubbard a very rich
man. That was what it was designed to do, wasn't it?) We left the
clams to their table. We weren't there to be drawn into a fight.

Near the end of our sojurn, a man in the crowd noticed B's shirt and
said "You aren't a Scientologist, are you?" B assured him that he was
not; we were Scientology critics. Thus reassured, the man started
telling B about how his brother had gotten on a CoS mailing list
twenty years ago, and even though he had moved away many years since,
he was STILL getting mail from them. This guy had tried writing to
the org, explaining that his brother no longer lived there and that
he did not want all these magazines and ads filling up his tiny
mailbox, but to no avail. He couldn't get off the damned list. S
walked up and joined the discussion, and suggested that the man write
to the org and tell them he's a declared SP. Communication with
an SP is a crime in Scientology, so they'd have to stop. He was very
grateful for this advice and said he'd give it a try. S also advised
him to include one of our orange flyers with his letter, so he took an
extra one for that purpose.

After leaving the fair, we took time out for refreshments and a review
of the videotape before moving on to the victory lap: we drove up to
the org on West Stadium Boulevard and posed for group pictures in
front of the big blue "Hubbard Dianetics Foundation" sign. Xenu and
his band of SPs waved happily for the camera, then we giggled all the
way back to the house. Afterwards we had a great barbecue and told
our compatriots about our adventure. Pictures (and perhaps a video
clip) will be on a web page soon. This was the first stop in Xenu's
world tour, and it was a resounding success.

The next day we got a report that Xenu's appearance and the misdeeds
of Scientology had been discussed on the University of Michigan
campus radio station. My, those flyers do get around.

Lord Xenu's own explanation for this dissemenation action was brief
and to the point: "We are intending to make Our full story clear to
all Public on the planet." Look for further appearances by Xenu on
his World Tour soon. He's quickly becoming a popular guy.

................

Lessons Learned:

+ This was street theater, not a protest action. We tried to
entertain people and greet them with good humor. In order to get
them to take a flyer, we couldn't assault them with heavy stuff about
cult harassment. They were there to have fun, and we had to play to
that. So we offered them a good laugh or two (M was quite funny in
costume, especially when playing up to little kids or dancing to some
of the bands we passed), and we followed up by offering copies of
"Xenu's biography". The heavy stuff would sink in later.

+ The t-shirts were a major win. A lot of folks recognized the front
(who can miss a TIME Magazine cover?) or read the back when they
passed us and turned around to see the space alien and his weird
entourage. We will put the graphic up on a web page so anyone can
print it out on a color printer, take it to the local mall, and give
it to a t-shirt shop with a scanner.

+ Get the media involved. We were unable to pre-arrange press
coverage, but we did drop off flyers at both radio stations that were
running booths at the fair, and spoke with some of the staff there.

+ With two other persons at his side distributing flyers, Xenu was
free to spend his time waving at the crowd and shaking hands with
little kids. It sometimes took people a few seconds to process this
weird scene. By the time Xenu had passed and they'd done their double
take, they were in a receptive mood and were happy to take a flyer.

- The mask restricts vision a bit. Xenu really does need a bodyguard.
This made M feel safe enough to play the role effectively. In a
protest situation, with hostile Sea Org milling about, a bodyguard
would have been even more important. A camcorder is also a good
device for inhibiting people's more aggressive reactions. One mistake
we made was having the cameraman also distribute some flyers; this
took his attention off the camera work and caused him to miss the
start of the clam confrontation.

- This was conceived and executed as a team event. A group of 5 is
big enough to attract notice, yet small enough to be manageable.
Everyone had an assigned job, and we reviewed our respective roles and
strategy before setting out for the fair. This turned out to be quite
helpful.

- The key point to emphasize is ATTITUDE: we designed this action as a
lark. We weren't out to hassle anyone. We weren't mad at the clams;
we felt sorry for their delusions. (Xenu did lose it when the
spokesclam started raving at us; Xenu called him an asshole. But it
was only a momentary loss of temper; J moved in to calm M down and S
got between Xenu and the clam to refocus the clam's attention on
himself.) Of course, these were just junior clams, not arrogant OTs
or Sea Org nazis, but we would have tried to be charitable towards
these as well.

--Dispatch breaks off here--

Next Stop for Xenu

There is a well founded rumor that Xenu will appear in San Francisco
on one or both days of the next ARSCC coordinated picket action,
which will take place on September 6-7. See Jeff Jacobsen's web
page for details: http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/

For the Xenu World Tour official web site, see:

http://www.cedar.net/users/dvanhorn/xenu

----------

5. Rodent Report: Unreported Activities

A certain passionate lady has recently been visited in her
country abode by one of the most engaging men in cyberspace. The two
spent a number of hours together. We can assure the reader that
absolutely no impropriety occurred. Nevertheless, let this serve as
a warning to gentlemen on ars not to take ladies' affections for
granted.

--Arlene Fortiori

The End

[**Biased Journalism** is distributed free in cyberspace. To
subscribe, send a message to <biased-...@lists.uchsc.edu>
with "subscribe" as the subject. Comments, article submissions
and hot tips should be addressed to <stho...@netcom.com>. Solid
mail, checks and donations go to S. Thomson, 236 Stanford S/C,
Suite 142, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Separate issues of **Biased
Journalism** are available via USA domestic mail at $5 apiece.
Foreign rates on request.]

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson):

>An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with
>the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
>attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
>documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
>RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
>never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
>defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
>documents!
>
> It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.

It's the scieno way
.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>

[Arnaldo Lerma]

stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:

>
> **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
> the shortcomings of the professional news media.
>
> Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
>
> Mail, articles and comment may be directed to <stho...@netcom.com>.
> Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the
> following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the
> net immediately.
>

Well I might as well post this threatenting mail directl;y to
the net.. shelly. -

You've obviosly been opped by the cult or some cult operative, I
thought you had integrity to check your facts...

>
>**Biased Journalism** Volume 2, issue 16 August 22, 1996.
>
>
>Contents: Dipping at the Well of Justice: August 2, 1996;
> Inside FACTNet; The Devil in the Details [Words of Art];
> Xenu on Tour [ARSCC field report]; September picket
> information [end of Xenu file]; Rodent Report
> [a gossip column]
>
>Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**!
>
>Late News: Tom Klemesrud, sysop of support.com, has settled with
>RTC for $50,000. The settlement, which was mediated by his insurance
>company, includes no admission of liability. Netcom, sued along
>with Klemesrud, recently settled upon undisclosed terms. This leaves
>Dennis Erlich standing alone.
>

alone is how the cult likes to attack people.

> On Monday, August 19 Arnie Lerma posted a public notice:
>
> "Re: Civil Action 95-1107-A RTC vs Lerma
>
> "As of the morning of Tuesday, August 20th,
> Arnaldo Lerma hereby dismisses Faegre & Benson, LLP
> and Ross DIxon & Masback, LLP as counsel.
>
> "Both firms have been notified of my decision this morning.
>
> "Lerma is proceeding Pro-Se , until new counsel is determined.
>
> For more than a year there have been severe strains behind
>the scenes at FACTNet. Board members have been removed one after
>another, inevitably after a personality conflict with Lawrence
>Wollersheim

Jon Atack, Kim Baker and Jan Merril left or were

>dismissed without replacement. As of August 10, the board numbered
>only three: Lawrence Wollersheim, Arnie Lerma and Bob Penny.
>

Atack wanted out, Jan Merrill wanted out. Or dont you really care
about the devil in the details?

>
> Bob Penny maintained that the case should be handled as a
>copyright case. He opposed widening the issue. Faegre and Benson
>preferred Penny's approach. Wollersheim became increasingly
>impatient with Penny. Interpersonal difficulties developed
>between F&B and Wollersheim. Eventually Jeff Reiman was hired to act
>as a mediator between Wollersheim and Tom Kelly (the lead attorney
>with F&B).
>

Rieman was hired at counsel for FACTNet the copr oration.
Who is providing these twists to you?

>FACTNet sued Coregis and won. Coregis prepared to hand over the
>check, in the amount of $925,000.
>

> Unhappily, there were strings. Coregis wanted to pay the
>various pre-existing claims on the money and set aside a portion for
>Penny.

This is twisted beyond reason.
Coreiguis just wants our. Media Professional moves to get a piece
of any residudual money.

Jeff Reiman, who was also owed money, proposed that the funds
>be placed in a trust account in his care for disbursement. This was
>the last straw for Wollershiem, who fired him on the spot, in front
>of the magistrate judge who was in charge of the insurance settlement
>talks. Wollersheim wanted the entire check turned over to FACTNet.
>

Which was *exactly* what the setllement agreement originally was
supposed to state.

> Coregis was not willing to do this,

it aint coreigis... A motion was introduced by MEdia
Professional/Gulf insurance the first carrier...

The devil is in the details shelly.

and negotiations
>collapsed. As of this writing we believe they are still on hold.
>

The Judge has asked that I attend the next setllement cobference.
in colorado.

> Faegre and Benson conferred on the subject, and quickly
>returned a decision to Wollersheim: they were leaving. They filed
>a sealed brief with the court. In an unusual move, the judge
>allowed them to withdraw. This took place only two weeks before the
>FACTNet defendants were required to file an answer to a Motion for
>Summary Judgment by the church.
>

Hmm you conveniently omit data here.

from lermas declaration recently posted: " Recently, a member of
the Faegre firm called Bob Penny, who is seriously ill and
impaired with multiple sclerosis, and claimed that he received Mr.
Penny's assent to withdraw
from the Denver case against FACTNet for which I serve as a Director.
Mr. Penny provided a
notarized statement denying that he assented for Faegre to withdraw.
"

this assent was used as basis of withdrawel. Got it? or dont you
care about facts anymore? It was this action that was the last straw
for me and LW.
Th

> The next day, August 12, Bob Penny received a telephone call
>from Lawrence Wollersheim stating that there would be an emergency
>board meeting by phone in ten minutes. The telephone call was
>very brief. Penny listened silently as Wollersheim told him that
>he and Lerma were voting him off the board.
>
> The reason given in the meeting was that Penny disagreed
>with Wollersheim's views of how the copyright case should be argued.

Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?

this is vicious...

Colorado law states that if you maintain a board member who is
incompetent, the other members become liable for his actions.

(not past actions while he was doing better) -

we had no choice, the fiction you describe above is fiction, and I
ask you
to evaluate who is feeding you this drivel and determine why...

>
> On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc
>session on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had
>been removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental
>capability due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed
>FACTNet in jeopardy. Fellow directors can be held liable for his
>actions, if he has any impairment that would interfere with his
>duties, Lerma said. We sorta had no choice.
>
> Natives of the channel asked pertinent questions. How did
>Penny feel about leaving?

rtaher than give a short answer , I didint ask 'hey bob how do you
feel? Bob isnt certain most of the time how he feels...

What about
>the insurance coverage? "It doesn't affect insurance coverage in any
>way...for alleged acts or omissions during his tenure." Doesn't this
>sort of abandon Bob to the wolves, legally speaking? [exact quote
>from a prominent netizen] "Just stop that speculation right now,"
>Lerma said.
>
> Lerma: "well I suppose i'm in for lots o flak on this one, but
>I assure you it was brought to our attention by our corporate
>counsel that there was a risk...that should be avoided... due to his
>health, we didnt want it..."
>
> Net: i'm just worried about the future of Bob's legal case. I
>don't want to see him forced into a settlement in his condition.
>
> Lerma: it doesnt affect his coverage in any way...
>
> Net: it may not affect his insurance coverage, but what about
>his representation by F&B?

Well perhaps you should re-read what I wrote above with all the
facts.. instead of biased journalism this is fraudulent journalsm.

> Net: what about his financial status? Was he receiving any
>compensation from factnet?
>

What conmpensation? He has prepared his personal finances very
well. His assets are protected.

>
> As to whether evicting Penny from the board was suggested by
>their corporate counsel, we doubt that the advice came from Faegre and
>Benson. Bob Penny agreed with F&B on case strategy. But by this
>time, inspired by the prospect of Coregis funds, Wollersheim had
>already invited other attorneys (notably Graham Berry) to participate
>in FACTNet litigation. We surmise that someone other than F&B
>suggested that things might go better without Bob Penny on the board.

You surmise nothing..

>
> Bob Penny's ouster did not affect the size of the recovery
>from Coregis. Penny was covered for acts and omissions during his
>tenure, as Lerma correctly said. Instead it deprived him of any
>authority over how the Coregis funds would be spent.

complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.
you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.
You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have no idea
shelly.

His removal
>also made him a potential target of lawsuits by the remaining board
>members.
>

Complete and utter rubbish, - where are you gettinbg this
CRAP!?????

> Sources state that Wollersheim has now accused Penny of
>performing the actions that brought on the copyright lawsuit
>without the consent of the rest of the board. [This includes
>putting copyrighted materials on FACTNet CDs and so forth.]
>The accusation surfaced in an acrimonious conference involving
>Wollersheim, Lerma, Penny, Faegre & Benson lawyers and Graham
>Berry (acting for Wollersheim). We understand that the idea of
>suing Faegre and Benson for malpractice was brought up at this
>conference. (Faegre and Benson withdrew immediately after this
>meeting.)

FAegre moved to withdraw by getting cvliaming to get penny's assent
via phone... prior to this. You irresponsibly misattribute... and
are twisting this into a scene I dont recognize at all.

During this conference Penny, under instructions from
>Wollersheim, said nothing.
A short time later he was removed
>from the board.
>
> Will FACTNet sue Penny?

???? RUBBISH ????

We think it may.
An effort to palm
>off all liability onto Penny might not succeed in the copyright case,
>but it might have the virtue of giving FACTNet an excuse not to pay
>out any of the Coregis check for Penny's legal expenses.

RUBBISH!

In best
>case, FACTNet could wind up with all the money and Bob Penny could
>wind up with all the liability.
>

You are really sick. This is disguisting, OSA paying you to print
this rubbish?

> Similarly, suing Faegre and Benson might provide a means to
>withhold payment of their claimed legal fees and prevent Coregis from
>paying part of the settlement directly to F&B.
>

now that's an idea...

> Bob Penny was concerned about the conduct of the copyright
>case. He asked Faegre and Benson whether they would continue to
>represent him. They refused, citing their previous representation of
>the board as a whole. They were too deeply involved with all parties
>to represent either side in a conflict. This was a blow to Penny, who
>now must start looking for new attorneys for the copyright case and
>worry about the potential lawsuit from FACTNet.

There is no poterntial for a lawsuit - I cant even discuss this
without spitting.

>
> On August 19 Steve Fishman made a post to ars in which he
>revealed that he had had dinner with Bob Penny and friends. During
>this dinner we believe he was told the true state of affairs, but
>the post conveyed a quite different impression:
>
>"By the way, this week I visited with Margery Wakefield and Bob Penny
>in Colorado, putting the final touches on my motion to permanently
>unseal the upper level materials, and working with F.A.C.T.net
>officials. Bob Penny, as many of you know, is one of the Founding
>Board of Directors of F.A.C.T.net, and Margery Wakefield is the author
>of the Road to Xenu. We had a great time out there in the Denver
>rockies and got a lot accomplished."
>

> In reality, we believe that Fishman had been promised some
>funds from the Coregis settlement and was in Colorado to close the
>deal. The discovery that Penny was off the board and Coregis had not
>handed over the check could not have been welcome news. We imagine
>that Fishman quickly decided to seek an accommodation with
>Wollersheim.
>

whether the check is handed over is NOT up to coreigis, its up to
the MAgistrate Judge managing to settlement hearings...

> On Monday Arnie Lerma announced that he had dismissed Faegre
>and Benson, LLP and Ross Dixon and Masback, LLP as his attorneys.
>He is acting pro se for the time being. The decks are cleared for
>a new set of lawyers and a new wave of lawsuits.
>

Hey, Im tryin to save some money, what the hell are you tryin to do?

Arnaldo Lerma

> We await further developments with interest.
>
>Summary:
>
> FACTNet is in disarray.

No, we are regrouping and getting done what needs to get done to
ensure freedom and safety for cult victims everywhere. LW is going to
put his entire judgement into defending FACTNet adn BOB Penny and
MYself. -

In the most likely scenario, based
>on what we know,

You know very little

FACTNet will sue Bob Penny and refuse to pay some or
>all of Penny's legal expenses.

crapola, if if this bullshit were plausible, you cant get blood
outtah a stone...

Bob Penny will have to find lawyers
>to defend himself against both the church and FACTNet.

RUBBISH!

FACTNet has
>will probably file a malpractice suit against Faegre and Benson.
>Presumably F&B will countersue for payment of their fees.

no comment

Meanwhile
>Wollersheim and Lerma will assemble a new legal team headed by Graham
>Berry and undertake a complete change of strategy. New lawsuits will
>be filed as soon as Coregis funds are available.

Not waiting for Coreigis, Im taking the remaining money out of my
home.... while you make surrilous and irresponsible, inflammatory
allegations form the comfort of your monitor....

We do not expect
>Arnie Lerma's pro per status to last long; we infer that it is an
>interim measure pending a reorganization of FACTNet's legal resources.

>The Coregis funds, when released, will be spent at the sole discretion
>of Lawrence Wollersheim.
>

RUBBISH!

The money has to be passed by the board.
We have to agree to do anything...

>Short summary:
>
> Two words. Foot bullet.
>

no, here are two words:

Irresponsible Journalism

> [Note: this analysis was written on the basis of information
>supplied to us by anonymous sources. We apologize for errors and
>omissions, and will be happy to review the matter based upon
>additional information.]
>
> Our misgivings concern the apparent injustice to Bob Penny and
>the doubtful wisdom of changing lawyers in midstream. After this
>performance FACTnet may have difficulty finding persons to sit on
>its board.

Hmmm, seems you wer unwilling to take a seat too..
Who in his right mind would sit in the crosshairs for no pay...

With respect to Bob Penny, the possibility that he might
>actually be sued by FACTNet is one we would gladly see laid to rest.

Well you created this nightmarish view... I'll forward any flames to
you to handle. I dont have time, Im defending myself and my fellow
directors including Bob Penny as best I can in spite of crap like
this.

You are wasting my time.

[Rod McCarvel]

In article <321cde51...@204.245.3.50>,
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:

>stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson):

>
>>An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with
>>the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
>>attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
>>documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
>>RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
>>never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
>>defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
>>documents!
>>
>> It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.
>

> It's the scieno way

Perhaps, but I wonder how effective it is likely to be. The
information conveyed to these attorneys cannot be considered
"confidences" (i.e., material covered by the attorney/client
privilege), because it has been shared with numerous individuals
outside of the attorney/client relationship. Nor, it seems, should the
information be considered "secrets" (material which the attorney is
ethically required to keep confidential due to its acquisition in the
course of representation), in that I doubt a unilateral action of this
sort can actually create an attorney/client relationship. I'm not sure
that knowledge of any information outside of confidences or secrets is
sufficient to disqualify an attorney from representing the opposing
party. In short, if this sort of tactic actually worked, lots of other
folks would be employing it every day. Sounds like a pretty desperate
strategy to me.

[followups trimmed]

Happy trails,
Rod

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

r...@seanet.com (Rod McCarvel):

>The
>information conveyed to these attorneys cannot be considered
>"confidences" (i.e., material covered by the attorney/client
>privilege), because it has been shared with numerous individuals
>outside of the attorney/client relationship.

It might take the lawfirm considerable effort (not to mention cost)
down the line to prove that they had no conflict of interest. It's
all designed to deny their critics 'due process' and 'equal justice'
under the law.

>Nor, it seems, should the
>information be considered "secrets" (material which the attorney is
>ethically required to keep confidential due to its acquisition in the
>course of representation), in that I doubt a unilateral action of this
>sort can actually create an attorney/client relationship. I'm not sure
>that knowledge of any information outside of confidences or secrets is
>sufficient to disqualify an attorney from representing the opposing
>party. In short, if this sort of tactic actually worked, lots of other
>folks would be employing it every day.

Lots of other folks don't have unlimited litigation budgets.

>Sounds like a pretty desperate strategy to me.

Compared to taking the internet to court? Monkey-business as per
usial, I'd say.

[erikc]

inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)

in message <321cde51...@204.245.3.50>
dated 22 Aug 1996 16:01:02 -0700 wrote:

>>|stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson):

>>|>An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with
>>|>the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
>>|>attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
>>|>documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
>>|>RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
>>|>never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
>>|>defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
>>|>documents!
>>|>
>>|> It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.

>>| It's the scieno way

>>|.
>>| Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
>>| <dennis....@support.com>
>>| <inF...@primenet.com>

So does this mean that the $cienopaths can actually prevent Henson &
Ward from securing legal defence? Or does it mean that the quality of
defence available to them is compromised? Is this illegal?

Erikc

Religious fundamentalists are a plague sent by God to
punish us for no good reason. -- me

[Tilman Hausherr]

In <sthomson...@netcom.com>, stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson)
wrote:

> Bob Penny maintained that the case should be handled as a
>copyright case. He opposed widening the issue.

I agree with Lawrence. Countersue the clams on all fronts. Use their own
tactics against them in court. The FACTNet case has never been a
copyright issue.

[Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine]

In article <sthomson...@netcom.com>, shelley thomson writes:
>
> **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
> the shortcomings of the professional news media.

> Meanwhile, someone is talking urgently in our other ear.
>An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with
>the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
>attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
>documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
>RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
>never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
>defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
>documents!
> It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.

This is the urgent point. Somebody really ought to pick up on
this: get something in the legam magazines or at least write
round those same 100 lawfirms, or have their lawyers doing so,
saying that in general terms they don't feel this is an ethical
way to proceed, that the victims of the trick take note of it,
and SHOULD INSTRUCT THEIR MAILROON TO RETURN ANYTHING FROM R.T.C
UNOPENNED & IN A SEALED PACK....also to right back honestly this
time saying "I do not want these documents, I do not appreciate
your behaviour, I opened the box and glanced at the top three
pages very briefly but toook no other cognnisance of it."
It is possible that Dennis's lawyers should raise this
with the court. There is also a possibility on some stage that
one of them may want to argue this way in court, that the supposed
conflict of interest was contrived as a trap and that they wrote
promptly saying they had taken littel notice of the papers
and returned them (if it was me, I would return the parcel
"addressee pays" with no stamps on).

>
>Late News: Tom Klemesrud, sysop of support.com, has settled with
>RTC for $50,000. The settlement, which was mediated by his insurance
>company, includes no admission of liability. Netcom, sued along
>with Klemesrud, recently settled upon undisclosed terms. This leaves
>Dennis Erlich standing alone.

Bad news indeed :-(

> "...patent infringement claim..." the words hang in the
>air. We happen to glance at the left side of the courtroom, rear
>row, and notice that the row is occupied by Milgrim, his partner
>Hart and Warren McShane. They are *riveted*. [It occurs to us that
>one can patent a process. We have a momentary bad sense of deja
>vu.]

However I believe a patent has to be shown to serve a practical
purpose, evidenced by a demostration (in most cases a worlking model).
Thus patent applications for perpretual motion machines or other
intangibles don't hack it.

>
>
>Short summary:
>
> Two words. Foot bullet.
>

Hmmm.

> Xenu Kicks Off World Tour in Michigan
>
>ANN ARBOR - July 27 (SP Straightwire). On the first stop of his Grand
>Tour of the Planet, Lord Xenu, former head of the Galactic Federation
>and star of the Scientology document "OT III", made a public
>appearance at the Ann Arbor Art Fair.

>There is a well founded rumor that Xenu will appear in San Francisco
>on one or both days of the next ARSCC coordinated picket action,
>which will take place on September 6-7. See Jeff Jacobsen's web
>page for details: http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/
>For the Xenu World Tour official web site, see:
> http://www.cedar.net/users/dvanhorn/xenu

This is excellently done. I hope Xemu will be visitting a few
of the pickets worldwide. I wouldn't mind wearing the costume/mask
at ours, but I'm not set up to make it.......

--
Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on ( alt.religion.scientology
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
___________________________________________________________________
OT8 Cognition:"Source is the 8th Dynamic"[LRon Hubbard is God]BWAAH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Rich Burroughs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
(Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:

> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>
> >
> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.

[snip]

> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>
> this is vicious...

[big snip]

Shelley,

Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?

IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
the ones contained in your article.

Rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMh6DEinhWc34xW2VAQHsXAf/XZppKsdE5WwMJagRmU8kk/0KVlp6WCIH
F0TITzE3SjKrDYnLx9vrDc47xXmB1J3LWfgSm2WdmqP7qz7vpKkhJyKpIobXkTCc
NOdypRNzCnLfOMsFjiAHEALjiyot5JcO93fzfM2qxIUeubOTDBB3zQYPVmzkErqi
d/aWf1iI28/1I0BNzBTy5akLinZ4+IdSIxlFLzy0+yim5U6KQz23wttma+8fwnT3
Zqm9M9VKrTIZpY2IwcXgTH2CCh1T0c1AUEsyZX39mD365sKqb3FH4dkvDasMAAbs
296OMjT3dBEjXTAVNgzmdtrVZ/L/AA28hw8OWapv0/2Jos7LzlFkVQ==
=Aa87
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Sister Clara]

In article <321c8faf...@news.dgsys.com>
ale...@dgs.dgsys.com (Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:

> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>
> >
> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
> >
> > Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
> >
> > Mail, articles and comment may be directed to <stho...@netcom.com>.
> > Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the
> > following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the
> > net immediately.
> >
> Well I might as well post this threatenting mail directl;y to
> the net.. shelly. -
>
> You've obviosly been opped by the cult or some cult operative, I
> thought you had integrity to check your facts...

Arnie, is it your contention that anyone who ever expresses doubts or
misgivings about FACTNet in general or Wollersheim in particular
(particularly in relation to the financial status and dealings of FACTNet)
must therefore be a cult stooge/employee/sympathiser? I have seen you level
this charge before against others who have raised what are, to my mind,
legitimate concerns as to the financial status of FACTNet and the
motivations of Wollersheim.

Your use of the word "obviously" betrays your stance on this issue. Having
made the charge, you then have the nerve to ask Shelley to "check your
facts".

Pot - kettle - black.

>
>
> >
> >**Biased Journalism** Volume 2, issue 16 August 22, 1996.
> >
> >
> >Contents: Dipping at the Well of Justice: August 2, 1996;
> > Inside FACTNet; The Devil in the Details [Words of Art];
> > Xenu on Tour [ARSCC field report]; September picket
> > information [end of Xenu file]; Rodent Report
> > [a gossip column]
> >
> >Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**!
> >
> >Late News: Tom Klemesrud, sysop of support.com, has settled with
> >RTC for $50,000. The settlement, which was mediated by his insurance
> >company, includes no admission of liability. Netcom, sued along
> >with Klemesrud, recently settled upon undisclosed terms. This leaves
> >Dennis Erlich standing alone.
> >
>
> alone is how the cult likes to attack people.

And they are very adept at isolating people.

>
>
> > On Monday, August 19 Arnie Lerma posted a public notice:
> >
> > "Re: Civil Action 95-1107-A RTC vs Lerma
> >
> > "As of the morning of Tuesday, August 20th,
> > Arnaldo Lerma hereby dismisses Faegre & Benson, LLP
> > and Ross DIxon & Masback, LLP as counsel.
> >
> > "Both firms have been notified of my decision this morning.
> >
> > "Lerma is proceeding Pro-Se , until new counsel is determined.
> >
> > For more than a year there have been severe strains behind
> >the scenes at FACTNet. Board members have been removed one after
> >another, inevitably after a personality conflict with Lawrence
> >Wollersheim
>
> Jon Atack, Kim Baker and Jan Merril left or were
> >dismissed without replacement. As of August 10, the board numbered
> >only three: Lawrence Wollersheim, Arnie Lerma and Bob Penny.
> >
> Atack wanted out, Jan Merrill wanted out. Or dont you really care
> about the devil in the details?

The fact that two members "wanted out" is covered adequately and accurately
by the phrase "left or were dismissed".

>
> >
> > Bob Penny maintained that the case should be handled as a
> >copyright case. He opposed widening the issue. Faegre and Benson
> >preferred Penny's approach. Wollersheim became increasingly
> >impatient with Penny. Interpersonal difficulties developed
> >between F&B and Wollersheim. Eventually Jeff Reiman was hired to act
> >as a mediator between Wollersheim and Tom Kelly (the lead attorney
> >with F&B).
> >
>
> Rieman was hired at counsel for FACTNet the copr oration.
> Who is providing these twists to you?

Who indeed? And are they twists?

>
>
> >FACTNet sued Coregis and won. Coregis prepared to hand over the
> >check, in the amount of $925,000.
> >
>
>
>
> > Unhappily, there were strings. Coregis wanted to pay the
> >various pre-existing claims on the money and set aside a portion for
> >Penny.
>
> This is twisted beyond reason.
> Coreiguis just wants our. Media Professional moves to get a piece
> of any residudual money.

I am sorry - that does not seem to parse.

>
>
>
> Jeff Reiman, who was also owed money, proposed that the funds
> >be placed in a trust account in his care for disbursement. This was
> >the last straw for Wollershiem, who fired him on the spot, in front
> >of the magistrate judge who was in charge of the insurance settlement
> >talks. Wollersheim wanted the entire check turned over to FACTNet.
> >
>
> Which was *exactly* what the setllement agreement originally was
> supposed to state.

But didn't?

>
>
>
>
> > Coregis was not willing to do this,
>
> it aint coreigis... A motion was introduced by MEdia
> Professional/Gulf insurance the first carrier...
>
> The devil is in the details shelly.

As is the whole truth?

On what basis do you assert that Bob Penny is "incompetent"?

>
> (not past actions while he was doing better) -
>
> we had no choice, the fiction you describe above is fiction, and I
> ask you
> to evaluate who is feeding you this drivel and determine why...
>
>
>
> >
> > On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc
> >session on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had
> >been removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental
> >capability due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed
> >FACTNet in jeopardy. Fellow directors can be held liable for his
> >actions, if he has any impairment that would interfere with his
> >duties, Lerma said. We sorta had no choice.

What "loss of mental capability" was due to MS? I am very interested in
hearing what effect having MS is supposed to have on Bob Penny's mental
capabilities.

> >
> > Natives of the channel asked pertinent questions. How did
> >Penny feel about leaving?
> rtaher than give a short answer , I didint ask 'hey bob how do you
> feel? Bob isnt certain most of the time how he feels...

Are you ascribing that to his illness or a general reluctance on his part to
give a detailed summary of his precise feelings? How do you know that "he
isn't certain.....how he feels"? Is that what he has told you?

>
> What about
> >the insurance coverage? "It doesn't affect insurance coverage in any
> >way...for alleged acts or omissions during his tenure." Doesn't this
> >sort of abandon Bob to the wolves, legally speaking? [exact quote
> >from a prominent netizen] "Just stop that speculation right now,"
> >Lerma said.
> >
> > Lerma: "well I suppose i'm in for lots o flak on this one, but
> >I assure you it was brought to our attention by our corporate
> >counsel that there was a risk...that should be avoided... due to his
> >health, we didnt want it..."
> >
> > Net: i'm just worried about the future of Bob's legal case. I
> >don't want to see him forced into a settlement in his condition.
> >
> > Lerma: it doesnt affect his coverage in any way...
> >
> > Net: it may not affect his insurance coverage, but what about
> >his representation by F&B?
>
> Well perhaps you should re-read what I wrote above with all the
> facts.. instead of biased journalism this is fraudulent journalsm.

Are you disputing the summary of the irc conversation or its implied
conclusions?

>
> > Net: what about his financial status? Was he receiving any
> >compensation from factnet?
> >
>
> What conmpensation? He has prepared his personal finances very
> well. His assets are protected.

Not bad for someone who is deemed "incompetent".......

>
> >
> > As to whether evicting Penny from the board was suggested by
> >their corporate counsel, we doubt that the advice came from Faegre and
> >Benson. Bob Penny agreed with F&B on case strategy. But by this
> >time, inspired by the prospect of Coregis funds, Wollersheim had
> >already invited other attorneys (notably Graham Berry) to participate
> >in FACTNet litigation. We surmise that someone other than F&B
> >suggested that things might go better without Bob Penny on the board.
>
> You surmise nothing..

Surmising is free. Unless, of course, you mean that Shelley's "surmise" is
in fact true.

>
> >
> > Bob Penny's ouster did not affect the size of the recovery
> >from Coregis. Penny was covered for acts and omissions during his
> >tenure, as Lerma correctly said. Instead it deprived him of any
> >authority over how the Coregis funds would be spent.
>
> complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.
> you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.
> You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have no idea
> shelly.

But you have voted him off the board, Arnie. Therefore he has no legal
authority over how the funds would have been spent. An occasional
"charitable" contribution (if such were to be offered) is no substitute.

>
> His removal
> >also made him a potential target of lawsuits by the remaining board
> >members.
> >
> Complete and utter rubbish, - where are you gettinbg this
> CRAP!?????

So is Penny a "potential target" or not? Is this not one effect of removing
him from the board?

>
> > Sources state that Wollersheim has now accused Penny of
> >performing the actions that brought on the copyright lawsuit
> >without the consent of the rest of the board. [This includes
> >putting copyrighted materials on FACTNet CDs and so forth.]
> >The accusation surfaced in an acrimonious conference involving
> >Wollersheim, Lerma, Penny, Faegre & Benson lawyers and Graham
> >Berry (acting for Wollersheim). We understand that the idea of
> >suing Faegre and Benson for malpractice was brought up at this
> >conference. (Faegre and Benson withdrew immediately after this
> >meeting.)
>
> FAegre moved to withdraw by getting cvliaming to get penny's assent
> via phone... prior to this. You irresponsibly misattribute... and
> are twisting this into a scene I dont recognize at all.

1. Has Wollersheim accused Penny of performing the actions that brought on
the copyright lawsuit without the consent of the rest of the board? Yes or
no?

2. If yes, did that accusation surface in the conference described by
Shelley?

>
>
>
> During this conference Penny, under instructions from
> >Wollersheim, said nothing.
> A short time later he was removed
> >from the board.
> >
> > Will FACTNet sue Penny?
>
> ???? RUBBISH ????
>
> We think it may.
> An effort to palm
> >off all liability onto Penny might not succeed in the copyright case,
> >but it might have the virtue of giving FACTNet an excuse not to pay
> >out any of the Coregis check for Penny's legal expenses.
>
> RUBBISH!
>
> In best
> >case, FACTNet could wind up with all the money and Bob Penny could
> >wind up with all the liability.
> >
> You are really sick. This is disguisting, OSA paying you to print
> this rubbish?

Repeating the word "rubbish" and claiming that Shelley is in the pay of OSA
does not constitute a reasoned rebuttal. Only a clear statement that the
actions which Shelley speculates about will NOT happen and NEVER happen can
do that. Will you make such a statement, Arnie? Will you be speaking for
Wollersheim as well?

>
>
> > Similarly, suing Faegre and Benson might provide a means to
> >withhold payment of their claimed legal fees and prevent Coregis from
> >paying part of the settlement directly to F&B.
> >
> now that's an idea...
>
> > Bob Penny was concerned about the conduct of the copyright
> >case. He asked Faegre and Benson whether they would continue to
> >represent him. They refused, citing their previous representation of
> >the board as a whole. They were too deeply involved with all parties
> >to represent either side in a conflict. This was a blow to Penny, who
> >now must start looking for new attorneys for the copyright case and
> >worry about the potential lawsuit from FACTNet.
>
> There is no poterntial for a lawsuit - I cant even discuss this
> without spitting.

Nor is spitting particularly helpful.

>
> >
> > On August 19 Steve Fishman made a post to ars in which he
> >revealed that he had had dinner with Bob Penny and friends. During
> >this dinner we believe he was told the true state of affairs, but
> >the post conveyed a quite different impression:
> >
> >"By the way, this week I visited with Margery Wakefield and Bob Penny
> >in Colorado, putting the final touches on my motion to permanently
> >unseal the upper level materials, and working with F.A.C.T.net
> >officials. Bob Penny, as many of you know, is one of the Founding
> >Board of Directors of F.A.C.T.net, and Margery Wakefield is the author
> >of the Road to Xenu. We had a great time out there in the Denver
> >rockies and got a lot accomplished."
> >

Oh shit. Fishman is involved.......

>
>
> > In reality, we believe that Fishman had been promised some
> >funds from the Coregis settlement and was in Colorado to close the
> >deal. The discovery that Penny was off the board and Coregis had not
> >handed over the check could not have been welcome news. We imagine
> >that Fishman quickly decided to seek an accommodation with
> >Wollersheim.
> >
>
> whether the check is handed over is NOT up to coreigis, its up to
> the MAgistrate Judge managing to settlement hearings...

I don't think that point is under dispute. The firm can decide not to hand
over the check UNTIL the judge has made a ruling, however......

>
>
> > On Monday Arnie Lerma announced that he had dismissed Faegre
> >and Benson, LLP and Ross Dixon and Masback, LLP as his attorneys.
> >He is acting pro se for the time being. The decks are cleared for
> >a new set of lawyers and a new wave of lawsuits.
> >
>
> Hey, Im tryin to save some money, what the hell are you tryin to do?

It is the methods by which you save money that are under examination. It
strikes me that Shelley is behaving like a journalist <grin>

>
> Arnaldo Lerma
>
> > We await further developments with interest.
> >
> >Summary:
> >
> > FACTNet is in disarray.
> No, we are regrouping and getting done what needs to get done to
> ensure freedom and safety for cult victims everywhere. LW is going to
> put his entire judgement into defending FACTNet adn BOB Penny and
> MYself. -
>
> In the most likely scenario, based
> >on what we know,
>
> You know very little

...then enlighten us.

>
> FACTNet will sue Bob Penny and refuse to pay some or
> >all of Penny's legal expenses.
>
> crapola, if if this bullshit were plausible, you cant get blood
> outtah a stone...

No, if Shelley is to be believed, then the intent is to SAVE money, not
extract further monies from Penny.

>
>
>
> Bob Penny will have to find lawyers
> >to defend himself against both the church and FACTNet.
>
> RUBBISH!

Who represents Penny at this moment in time?

>
> FACTNet has
> >will probably file a malpractice suit against Faegre and Benson.
> >Presumably F&B will countersue for payment of their fees.
>
> no comment
>
> Meanwhile
> >Wollersheim and Lerma will assemble a new legal team headed by Graham
> >Berry and undertake a complete change of strategy. New lawsuits will
> >be filed as soon as Coregis funds are available.
>
> Not waiting for Coreigis, Im taking the remaining money out of my
> home.... while you make surrilous and irresponsible, inflammatory
> allegations form the comfort of your monitor....

....but Coregis will pay up eventually.

>
> We do not expect
> >Arnie Lerma's pro per status to last long; we infer that it is an
> >interim measure pending a reorganization of FACTNet's legal resources.
>
>
> >The Coregis funds, when released, will be spent at the sole discretion
> >of Lawrence Wollersheim.
> >
> RUBBISH!
>
> The money has to be passed by the board.
> We have to agree to do anything...

And who remains on the board now?

>
>
> >Short summary:
> >
> > Two words. Foot bullet.
> >
> no, here are two words:
>
> Irresponsible Journalism
>
> > [Note: this analysis was written on the basis of information
> >supplied to us by anonymous sources. We apologize for errors and
> >omissions, and will be happy to review the matter based upon
> >additional information.]
> >
> > Our misgivings concern the apparent injustice to Bob Penny and
> >the doubtful wisdom of changing lawyers in midstream. After this
> >performance FACTnet may have difficulty finding persons to sit on
> >its board.
>
> Hmmm, seems you wer unwilling to take a seat too..
> Who in his right mind would sit in the crosshairs for no pay...
>
> With respect to Bob Penny, the possibility that he might
> >actually be sued by FACTNet is one we would gladly see laid to rest.
>
> Well you created this nightmarish view... I'll forward any flames to
> you to handle. I dont have time, Im defending myself and my fellow
> directors including Bob Penny as best I can in spite of crap like
> this.
>
> You are wasting my time.
>
>

But you have singularly failed to "lay to rest" the allegation. I feel that
"wasting time" in doing so would be in FACTNet's best interests. You don't
need to waste much time. A few simple statements (of the kind I have
suggested earlier) would do.

As far as Shelley's speculations are concerned, I feel that time will tell.

--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
http://www.magpie.co.uk/
alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business

[Sister Clara]

In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
> (Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>

> > stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
> > > the shortcomings of the professional news media.

> [snip]

> > Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
> >
> > this is vicious...

> [big snip]
>
> Shelley,
>
> Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>
> IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
> a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
> the ones contained in your article.

This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.

How can a publication that describes itself quite openly as biased be
expected to be fair as well? <grin>

The charges and speculations contained within the publication have as much
standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to give it.

The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing to do so) if they
are wrong or inaccurate.

[Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine]

In article <4vkoil$ni4...@rod.seanet.com>, Rod McCarvel
<r...@seanet.com> writes
>Perhaps, but I wonder how effective it is likely to be. The

>information conveyed to these attorneys cannot be considered
>"confidences" (i.e., material covered by the attorney/client
>privilege), because it has been shared with numerous individuals

>outside of the attorney/client relationship. Nor, it seems, should the

>information be considered "secrets" (material which the attorney is
>ethically required to keep confidential due to its acquisition in the
>course of representation), in that I doubt a unilateral action of this
>sort can actually create an attorney/client relationship. I'm not sure
>that knowledge of any information outside of confidences or secrets is
>sufficient to disqualify an attorney from representing the opposing
>party. In short, if this sort of tactic actually worked, lots of other

>folks would be employing it every day. Sounds like a pretty desperate
>strategy to me.

All the more reason to get proof and make a fuss about it:
maybe it even amounts to professional misconduct. Anyway,
it looks really shabby conduct and should be well publicisied.

[Steve A]

Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
> ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>> (Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>>

>> > stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>> > > the shortcomings of the professional news media.

>> [snip]

>> > Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>> >
>> > this is vicious...

>> [big snip]
>>
>> Shelley,
>>
>> Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>
>> IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>> a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>> the ones contained in your article.
>
>This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.
>
>How can a publication that describes itself quite openly as biased be
>expected to be fair as well? <grin>
>
>The charges and speculations contained within the publication have as much
>standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to give it.
>
>The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing to do so) if they
>are wrong or inaccurate.

I have got nothing but respect for Shelley's journalistic efforts: she
manages to make the traditionally rather dry business of court
reporting a pleasant read with her "our observer" 3rd-person style,
and I reserve a similar measure of anticipation for her next edition
as I do for my copy of Lavatory-Dynamiter's Gazette, delivered under
plain cover 3rd Friday of every month.

If there are errors, or an apparent bias, I feel sure we can rely on
Shelley to set the record straight.

ObURLS: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
--
"Your're obviously loaded with so many owerts and withholds that you
have committed, that you're lightyears away from being able to confront
the workable data about the overt-motivator sequence"
[Jesper Skovlund, Scieno apologist on a.r.s.]

My other hat's a fedora, too. And it's Black.

IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, victim of the cult of Scientology

[Rod Keller]

Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
: This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.

:
: How can a publication that describes itself quite openly as biased be
: expected to be fair as well? <grin>
:
: The charges and speculations contained within the publication have as much
: standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to give it.
:
: The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing to do so) if they
: are wrong or inaccurate.

I agree with Clara. BJ is openly biased, and shouldn't be confused with
real journalism. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.

--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / Elron's Inspector / Merchant of Chaos
Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully

[shelley thomson]

First let me correct some errors. The photographs will appear on a web
page, but it will not be Ron Newman's. The location will be announced
soon. I apologize for the mistake.

The September picket announcement should have said "September 7-8."

Arnaldo Lerma (ale...@dgs.dgsys.com) wrote:
: >
: Well I might as well post this threatenting mail directl;y to
: the net.. shelly. -

: You've obviosly been opped by the cult or some cult operative, I
: thought you had integrity to check your facts...

I am sorry you are displeased with what I wrote. However,
the actual facts in dispute are few. I cannot see overlooking Media
Professional as a major journalistic crime.

When I was researching this article I made three attempts to
talk with you. The first time, shortly after Penny had been removed
from the board, you said there was no news. The second time, you
said there was lots of news but you refused to discuss it with me.
I wrote once more, suggesting that you had done something that you
should perhaps think twice about. You replied that you had no
idea what I meant.

You stonewalled me. That is why you did not have input in
the article.

I check my facts carefully. My sources, of which there
are several, disagree with you on only a few points. They claim
that the primary reason Penny was removed from the board was his
disagreement with Wollersheim about the conduct of the case. In
view of the timing of his removal, just before a major change of
strategy, that strikes me as plausible.

: >
: >**Biased Journalism** Volume 2, issue 16 August 22, 1996.
: >
<snip>
: Jon Atack, Kim Baker and Jan Merril left or were

: >dismissed without replacement. As of August 10, the board numbered
: >only three: Lawrence Wollersheim, Arnie Lerma and Bob Penny.
: >
: Atack wanted out, Jan Merrill wanted out. Or dont you really care
: about the devil in the details?

I'd like to hear these stories. Who wanted out, and why? --the problem,
BTW, is that they were not replaced.

: >
: > Bob Penny maintained that the case should be handled as a

: >copyright case. He opposed widening the issue. Faegre and Benson
: >preferred Penny's approach. Wollersheim became increasingly
: >impatient with Penny. Interpersonal difficulties developed
: >between F&B and Wollersheim. Eventually Jeff Reiman was hired to act
: >as a mediator between Wollersheim and Tom Kelly (the lead attorney
: >with F&B).
: >

: Rieman was hired at counsel for FACTNet the copr oration.
: Who is providing these twists to you?

: >FACTNet sued Coregis and won. Coregis prepared to hand over the
: >check, in the amount of $925,000.
: >

:

: > Unhappily, there were strings. Coregis wanted to pay the
: >various pre-existing claims on the money and set aside a portion for
: >Penny.

: This is twisted beyond reason.
: Coreiguis just wants our. Media Professional moves to get a piece
: of any residudual money.

I'd like to know the whole story.

: Jeff Reiman, who was also owed money, proposed that the funds

: >be placed in a trust account in his care for disbursement. This was
: >the last straw for Wollershiem, who fired him on the spot, in front
: >of the magistrate judge who was in charge of the insurance settlement
: >talks. Wollersheim wanted the entire check turned over to FACTNet.
: >

: Which was *exactly* what the setllement agreement originally was
: supposed to state.

: > Coregis was not willing to do this,

: it aint coreigis... A motion was introduced by MEdia
: Professional/Gulf insurance the first carrier...
:
: The devil is in the details shelly.

Maybe. But it looks to me like you aren't disputing most of what
I said.

: and negotiations

: >collapsed. As of this writing we believe they are still on hold.
: >

: The Judge has asked that I attend the next setllement cobference.
: in colorado.

Good.

: > Faegre and Benson conferred on the subject, and quickly

: >returned a decision to Wollersheim: they were leaving. They filed
: >a sealed brief with the court. In an unusual move, the judge
: >allowed them to withdraw. This took place only two weeks before the
: >FACTNet defendants were required to file an answer to a Motion for
: >Summary Judgment by the church.
: >
: Hmm you conveniently omit data here.

: from lermas declaration recently posted: " Recently, a member of
: the Faegre firm called Bob Penny, who is seriously ill and
: impaired with multiple sclerosis, and claimed that he received Mr.
: Penny's assent to withdraw
: from the Denver case against FACTNet for which I serve as a Director.
: Mr. Penny provided a
: notarized statement denying that he assented for Faegre to withdraw.
: "

: this assent was used as basis of withdrawel. Got it? or dont you
: care about facts anymore? It was this action that was the last straw
: for me and LW.

I did not have access to this information when I wrote the article.

Last straw? Do you mean that Bob Penny signing this statement caused
Faegre and Benson to withdraw, or that it caused you and Lawrence to
remove Penny from the board?

: > The next day, August 12, Bob Penny received a telephone call

: >from Lawrence Wollersheim stating that there would be an emergency
: >board meeting by phone in ten minutes. The telephone call was
: >very brief. Penny listened silently as Wollersheim told him that
: >he and Lerma were voting him off the board.
: >
: > The reason given in the meeting was that Penny disagreed
: >with Wollersheim's views of how the copyright case should be argued.

: Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?

: this is vicious...

I don't discuss my sources if they wish to remain anonymous.

I don't see what is vicious about this. Do you claim that there
was no disagreement over strategy? My sources say that there
was; and since Penny's departure was immediately followed by
what looks like a major strategic revision, circumstantial
evidence agrees.

: Colorado law states that if you maintain a board member who is

:

These are harsh words. I would like to have all of the facts. You
have made a point of casting slurs on my integrity and questioning
my motives. If I am factually wrong, prove it and I will print a
retraction.

: > Net: what about his financial status? Was he receiving any
: >compensation from factnet?
: >

: What conmpensation? He has prepared his personal finances very
: well. His assets are protected.

: >
: > As to whether evicting Penny from the board was suggested by
: >their corporate counsel, we doubt that the advice came from Faegre and
: >Benson. Bob Penny agreed with F&B on case strategy. But by this
: >time, inspired by the prospect of Coregis funds, Wollersheim had
: >already invited other attorneys (notably Graham Berry) to participate
: >in FACTNet litigation. We surmise that someone other than F&B
: >suggested that things might go better without Bob Penny on the board.

: You surmise nothing..

<sigh> "surmise, v.: to imagine or infer on slight grounds; to guess.
syn: conjecture." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th
Edition.

Are you trying to say that Faegre and Benson wanted Penny taken
off the board? Please clarify your statement.

: >
: > Bob Penny's ouster did not affect the size of the recovery

: >from Coregis. Penny was covered for acts and omissions during his
: >tenure, as Lerma correctly said. Instead it deprived him of any
: >authority over how the Coregis funds would be spent.

: complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.
: you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.
: You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have no idea
: shelly.

: His removal
: >also made him a potential target of lawsuits by the remaining board
: >members.
: >

: Complete and utter rubbish, - where are you gettinbg this
: CRAP!?????

Well, let's see a formal statement signed by you and Lawrence
Wollersheim that FACTnet has no intention of suing Bob Penny and will
see that he gets his share of the insurance money. --If you had been
willing to talk to me when I was writing the article, you would have
had a chance to explain your motives.

: > Sources state that Wollersheim has now accused Penny of

: >performing the actions that brought on the copyright lawsuit
: >without the consent of the rest of the board. [This includes
: >putting copyrighted materials on FACTNet CDs and so forth.]
: >The accusation surfaced in an acrimonious conference involving
: >Wollersheim, Lerma, Penny, Faegre & Benson lawyers and Graham
: >Berry (acting for Wollersheim). We understand that the idea of
: >suing Faegre and Benson for malpractice was brought up at this
: >conference. (Faegre and Benson withdrew immediately after this
: >meeting.)

: FAegre moved to withdraw by getting cvliaming to get penny's assent
: via phone... prior to this. You irresponsibly misattribute... and
: are twisting this into a scene I dont recognize at all.

: During this conference Penny, under instructions from
: >Wollersheim, said nothing.
: A short time later he was removed
: >from the board.
: >
: > Will FACTNet sue Penny?

: ???? RUBBISH ????
<snip>
: RUBBISH!
<snip>
: You are really sick. This is disguisting, OSA paying you to print
: this rubbish?
<snip>
: I cant even discuss this without spitting.
<snip>
: You know very little
<snip>
: crapola
<snip>
: RUBBISH!
<snip>
: no comment
<snip>
: RUBBISH!
<snip>
: Irresponsible Journalism

No, it's **Biased Journalism**. I call it as I see it, but I like
to have the facts right. I will be happy to correct any factual
errors. If one of my articles has misrepresented someone's
intentions, I will correct that too. If you recall, in an earlier
issue I insinuated that Andrew Wilson, church attorney, did not
like the idea of Gerry Armstrong languishing in prison. Wilson
disputed this later and I made the correction. Do you think I would
do less for you?

--This silly blustering won't get you anywhere. Come up with some
facts, and let's talk.

Shelley Thomson

[Marina Chong]

On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 05:15:23 GMT ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote in
article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>(Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>

>> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.

>[snip]

>> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>>
>> this is vicious...

>[big snip]
>
>Shelley,
>
>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>
>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>the ones contained in your article.
>

I understand that Shelley attempted to get Arnie Lerma to comment on the article
three times, and he refused three times.

I also understand that Shelley had more than one anon source, and their stories
confirmed each other.

I would like to see a reasoned rebuttal from Arnie, and an assurance that
Factnet will not attack Bob Penny... in place of the incoherent accusations I
have just read his followup to the BJ post.

M

--
Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, Joker/Degrader
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT!
mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@super.zippo.com

[Margelis]

Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet
From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:31:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4299...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>

>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>> (Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>
> >> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
> >
> > >
>> > > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate
for
>> > > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
> [snip]
>> > Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
> >
> >> this is vicious...
>> [big snip]
>
>> Shelley,
>
>> Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>
>> IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties

.> a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like

>> the ones contained in your article.

Agreed.

Sister Clara:

>This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.

>How can a publication that describes itself quite openly >as biased be
>expected to be fair as well? <grin>

I cannot buy into the notion that simply because a publication entitles
itself "Biassed Journalism," it is therefore absolved of all obligation
for responsible journalistic practices. It's the difference betweeen
"Biassed Journalism"(...after all, who is *not* biassed?) and, as arnie
quite aptly wrote, "Irresponsible Journalism.

>The charges and speculations contained within the >publication have as
much
>standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to >give it.

Would its readers have wished to waste their time on the article had they
known in advance it was *in*accurate?

I think readers of any
supposedly reputable publication (which i have always taken BJ to be) have
a right to expect that reports (particularly from "anonymous sources")
will be checked at least cursorily for truthfulness. With LW and arnie at
hand to answer questions, why was this not done?

>The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing >to do so) if
they
>are wrong or inaccurate.

Have they *not* been rebutted? That was, as I understood it, the gist of
arnie's posting. The next step is usually a retraction by the erring
publication, is it not?

One of the underlying principle of DAing is that even if a false and
detrimental statement is later withdrawn, some damage will have been
sustained by the victim--in stress, in wasted energy countering the false
info, in the fact that, inevitably, some people will read the original
charges but miss the retraction, etc.

One would think Shelley, of all people, would be aware of this fact, and
be particularly careful not to make allegations which could potentially
cause harm to FACTNET, without first making *absolutely certain* they were
correct.

--
>Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - >potential DA subject
>Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
>http://www.magpie.co.uk/
>alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business

Margaret H.

"Oh, the Priest calls the Lawyer a cheat,
The Lawyer beknaves the Divine,
And the Statesman, because he's so great
Thinks his trade's as honest as mine."
~~~
(John Gay--~The Beggar's Opera~)

[Margelis]

Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

From: stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:03:29 GMT
Message-ID: <sthomsonD...@netcom.com>

Shelley:

> When I was researching this article I made three attempts to
>talk with you. The first time, shortly after Penny had been removed
>from the board, you said there was no news. The second time, you
>said there was lots of news but you refused to discuss it with me.
>I wrote once more, suggesting that you had done something that you
>should perhaps think twice about. You replied that you had no
>idea what I meant.

> You stonewalled me. That is why you did not have input >in
>the article.

From the way it looks, arnie has been extremely busy writing court briefs,
firing lawyers, etc, and may not have
felt he had time or energy to deal with PR at the moment.

It's hard for me to imagine, however, that if you had informed him of the
charges you were making in your article, such as the speculation that
FACTNET was going to sue Bob Penny, he would have refused to set the
record straight. Did you so inform him?

If not, why not? Is it common journalistic practice (I'm asking--I don't
know) to make such serious allegations without *informing* the potentially
injured parties and allowing them to rebut them *before* publication?

Also, did you make any attempt to speak with Wollersheim?
If not, why not?

~~

Margaret H.

[Sister Clara]

For about the 40th time, margelis, if you post AND e-mail would you PLEASE
indicate that fact to prevent answering twice. I did not respond to your
preliminary e-mail copy this time because I remembered that you were so
clueless that you never bothered to follow this useful bit of netiquette.

In article <4vnou2$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
marg...@aol.com (Margelis) wrote:

> Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

> From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:31:46 +0100
> Message-ID: <4299...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
>
> >In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
> ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
> >> (Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
> >
> > >> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> >> > > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate
> for
> >> > > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
> > [snip]
> >> > Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
> > >
> > >> this is vicious...
> >> [big snip]
> >
> >> Shelley,
> >
> >> Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
> >
> >> IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
> .> a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
> >> the ones contained in your article.
>
> Agreed.

As Shelley has pointed out in another post, she gave Arnie at least three
opportunities to comment on these allegations before she went to print. I
think that covers the "chance to comment" bit.

>
> Sister Clara:
> >This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.
>
> >How can a publication that describes itself quite openly >as biased be
> >expected to be fair as well? <grin>
>
> I cannot buy into the notion that simply because a publication entitles
> itself "Biassed Journalism," it is therefore absolved of all obligation
> for responsible journalistic practices. It's the difference betweeen
> "Biassed Journalism"(...after all, who is *not* biassed?) and, as arnie
> quite aptly wrote, "Irresponsible Journalism.

Journalism is always described as "irresponsible" when the person does not
like the message. Funny that, isn't it? I have noticed a number of people,
both here and on IRC, condemn the article when they cannot possibly KNOW
whether the information in it is accurate or not.

Either you know what you are talking about, or you do not, Margaret. If you
DO know what you are talking about here, I would like to know HOW? Why
should YOU be privy to the inner machinations of FACTNet?

>
> >The charges and speculations contained within the >publication have as
> much
> >standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to >give it.
>
> Would its readers have wished to waste their time on the article had they
> known in advance it was *in*accurate?

How you turn arguments on their head! Have you any credibility on this
newsgroup when you spent a considerable time earlier this year arguing in
favour of the veracity of Lonesome Squirrel despite that squalid little
document's many proven inaccuracies?

How do you KNOW that the essential details of the recent issue of Biased
Journalism are wrong? And, by the way, there is a considerable difference
between "inaccurate" and "wrong".

The central tenet of that article was that there was a strong possibility
that Bob Penny would be sued in the future by FACTNet in order to further
their interests. The only way that particular expressed fear can be laid to
rest is through a clear and unequivocal pledge to the readers of
alt.religion.scientology by Arnie, in the name of the board of FACTNet, that
this will NOT happen. I have not yet seen such a statement (that should be
fairly easy to give, surely) and I expect to see one in the next couple of
days.

If no statement of that kind is forthcoming, then I will have to conclude
that the fears expressed by Shelley have some basis in fact and the events
she describes as possible may indeed come to pass. And, if that indeed was
the case, I would regard any such action against Bob Penny to be utterly
despicable.

My challenge was made clear in a previous post on this thread.

>
> I think readers of any
> supposedly reputable publication (which i have always taken BJ to be) have
> a right to expect that reports (particularly from "anonymous sources")
> will be checked at least cursorily for truthfulness. With LW and arnie at
> hand to answer questions, why was this not done?

It was. They (or at least Arnie) refused to respond. Why can't you read? If
your newsfeed is too slow, use dejanews before making wild assertions of
this kind.

>
> >The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing >to do so) if
> they
> >are wrong or inaccurate.
>
> Have they *not* been rebutted? That was, as I understood it, the gist of
> arnie's posting. The next step is usually a retraction by the erring
> publication, is it not?

"I say that this is going to happen for the following reasons...."

"RUBBISH."

That dialogue (if it could be called such) certainly could not be regarded
as a rebuttal! Only a clear statement that Bob Penny will not be sued by
FACTNet and that this action is not (and never has been) contemplated can
put this baby to rest.

Arnie's response to the article was hysterical and incoherent (as has been
noted by others). Just as it was on IRC, where a net citizen was told to
mind his own business.

>
> One of the underlying principle of DAing is that even if a false and
> detrimental statement is later withdrawn, some damage will have been
> sustained by the victim--in stress, in wasted energy countering the false
> info, in the fact that, inevitably, some people will read the original
> charges but miss the retraction, etc.

You are so crass, Margaret, to use phrases like "DAing" with its cult
connections and the implication that Shelley therefore has some connection
to the cult. Why do we continue to hear the same refrain from a very small
number of posters? "He/she says unpleasant things about me/us. He/she must
be paid by OSA."

It is getting to be very tedious and predictable.

>
> One would think Shelley, of all people, would be aware of this fact, and
> be particularly careful not to make allegations which could potentially
> cause harm to FACTNET, without first making *absolutely certain* they were
> correct.
>

If any harm comes to FACTNet it will be through its own actions.

Now can anyone give me ONE GOOD REASON why Bob Penny has been left swinging
in the wind?

And I still await the official reason why he has been deemed "incompetent."

[Tilman Hausherr]

In <321f1e6b...@192.168.2.1>, ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A)
wrote:

>I have got nothing but respect for Shelley's journalistic efforts: she

There has been a lot of overhead: Court cases unrelated to a.r.s., Waco
conspiracy theories, half-stories about Ron Newman's love life.

But it's better than nothing at all.

Tilman

[Bev]

I think if we sit tight here for just a while, information
will come out that will answer this issue. Let's not assume
or speculate anything right now.

Beverly

[Sister Clara]

In article <e6c6...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Arnie's response to the article was hysterical and incoherent (as has been
> noted by others). Just as it was on IRC, where a net citizen was told to
> mind his own business.

Sorry - I am guilty of paraphrasing.

The precise words were "Fuck you".

[Sister Clara]

In article <4vnasj$r...@netaxs.com>
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:

> Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>

> : This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.

> :
> : How can a publication that describes itself quite openly as biased be
> : expected to be fair as well? <grin>

> :
> : The charges and speculations contained within the publication have as much

> : standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to give it.

> :
> : The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing to do so) if they
> : are wrong or inaccurate.
>

> I agree with Clara. BJ is openly biased, and shouldn't be confused with
> real journalism. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.
>

All papers and all journalists are biased. That includes whatever you happen
to regard as "real journalism" (journalism that agrees with you?). At least
BJ is open about it.

As a matter of interest, Rod, how do you KNOW it was a hatchet job? Care to
share whatever information you clearly have with the rest of us? After all,
to be so certain you must know more than the other poor mortals on this
newsgroup.......

Now, let me make my position crystal clear (as apparently it may be
misunderstood by some).

I don't know whether Shelley's article is true or not. I don't know whether
her speculations are grounded in good sense or not. I have not carried out
her research and I have received no background briefing. Indeed, I have not
communicated with her on this issue at any time.

So I anticipate a reasoned, fact-filled rebuttal from Arnie together with a
categorical statement that Shelley's fears regarding the future treatment of
Bob Penny are groundless.

Nothing less than the above will do for me. I have too much respect for the
quality of Shelley's journalism to simply dismiss it as "lies" or a "hatchet
job" purely because it contains criticisms of leading characters in the war
against Scientology.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT automatically my friend.

[sea...@super.zippo.com]

In article <4vnasj$r...@netaxs.com>, rke...@netaxs.com says...

>
>Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
>: This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.
>:
>: How can a publication that describes itself quite openly as biased be
>: expected to be fair as well? <grin>
>:
>: The charges and speculations contained within the publication have as much
>: standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to give it.
>:
>: The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing to do so) if they
>: are wrong or inaccurate.
>
>I agree with Clara. BJ is openly biased, and shouldn't be confused with
>real journalism. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.
>

Clara said nothing of the sort and the twisting of her words is at best
deceptive. If you have *facts*, then please post them. If you wish to add your
opinion then please do so without claiming someone else said them and you are
agreeing with them. I am sure Clara will let you know her level of "agreement"
with what you posted.

[Stuart P. Derby]

In article <321cde51...@204.245.3.50>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev.
Dennis L Erlich) wrote:

: stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson):
:
: >An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with

: >the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
: >attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
: >documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
: >RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
: >never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
: >defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
: >documents!
: >
: > It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.

:
: It's the scieno way

Not being an attorney, I don't know for sure, but I think it would be
prima facie evidence of litigating in bad faith. Also, if an attorney were
involved in preparing and sending out those documents, I would think that
such a bad faith effort to deny effective representation should be
sactionable by that attorney's bar association.

Is somebody following up on this?

-Stu
--
Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as
a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming
for the mainstream. -Time Magazine cover story, May 6, 1991
(available at <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html> )

[Anonymous]

In article <d450...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk "Sister
Clara" writes:

> > stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
> >
> > >"By the way, this week I visited with Margery Wakefield and Bob Penny
> > >in Colorado, putting the final touches on my motion to permanently
> > >unseal the upper level materials, and working with F.A.C.T.net
> > >officials. Bob Penny, as many of you know, is one of the Founding
> > >Board of Directors of F.A.C.T.net, and Margery Wakefield is the author
> > >of the Road to Xenu. We had a great time out there in the Denver
> > >rockies and got a lot accomplished."
>
> Oh shit. Fishman is involved.......

Im their efforts to get at Wollersheim and make their plans for
Total World Domination to "go right", the OSA kidnapped Steven Fishman
and now Arnie Lerma, replacing them with look-alikes...

Deep Clam

[Dean Benjamin]

Shelley Thompson (in **Biased Journalism** V2no16, August 22, 1996):

> On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc session
> on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had been
> removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental capability
> due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed FACTNet in jeopardy.
> Fellow directors can be held liable for his actions, if he has any
> impairment that would interfere with his duties, Lerma said. We
> sorta had no choice.

Sister Clara:

> What "loss of mental capability" was due to MS? I am very
> interested in hearing what effect having MS is supposed to have on
> Bob Penny's mental capabilities.

Last September 1995, in email, Bob Penny described his MS symptoms as
follows:

The symptoms [of MS] can be (and often are) muscular control, but
they can also be cognitive. I wobble when I walk, but that is
much less disturbing to me than the problems with concentration,
focus, and attention span. I often cannot remember what I was
doing or thinking about just a few moments ago.

Since MS is a progressive disease, his symptoms are probably worse
these days.

[William Barwell]

In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,

Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>(Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>

>> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.

>[snip]

>> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>>
>> this is vicious...

>[big snip]
>
>Shelley,
>
>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>
>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties

>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>the ones contained in your article.
>
>
>

Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.

If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
things.

Journalism 101.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!

[William Barwell]

In article <4299...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>,

Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>

> ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>> (Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>>
>> > stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>> > > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
>> [snip]
>> > Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>> >
>> > this is vicious...
>> [big snip]
>>
>> Shelley,
>>
>> Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>
>> IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>> a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>> the ones contained in your article.
>

>This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.

No fact checking? It is not journalism, it is just rumor mongering.
Time to change this E-journal's name if one is not going to practice
journalism.

If BJ continues on in this manner, I will kill file it.
'Facts', rumors, claims and opinions must be double checked as per basic
journalistic practices.

That is not too much to ask. People can be hurt by careless
amateur 'reporting'. If one wants to play reporter, one has an obligation
to follow basic good reporter's practices and fact checking is a
necessary part of that.

If one does not check facts, you will get it wrong. Guaranteed.
Sooner or later and most likely sooner.

[Sister Clara]

In article <DRB.96Au...@cs.cmu.edu>
d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dean Benjamin) wrote:

> Shelley Thompson (in **Biased Journalism** V2no16, August 22, 1996):

> > On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc session
> > on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had been
> > removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental capability
> > due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed FACTNet in jeopardy.
> > Fellow directors can be held liable for his actions, if he has any
> > impairment that would interfere with his duties, Lerma said. We
> > sorta had no choice.
>

> Sister Clara:

> > What "loss of mental capability" was due to MS? I am very
> > interested in hearing what effect having MS is supposed to have on
> > Bob Penny's mental capabilities.
>
>

> Last September 1995, in email, Bob Penny described his MS symptoms as
> follows:
>
> The symptoms [of MS] can be (and often are) muscular control, but
> they can also be cognitive. I wobble when I walk, but that is
> much less disturbing to me than the problems with concentration,
> focus, and attention span. I often cannot remember what I was
> doing or thinking about just a few moments ago.
>
> Since MS is a progressive disease, his symptoms are probably worse
> these days.

The precise symptoms of MS vary from individual to individual. It is
fundamentally a degenerative illness of the central nervous system (which
may have lengthy periods of remission) that has an increasing effect on the
sufferer's ability to feel, move and coordinate. The very high levels of
fatigue that accompany this can certainly lead to the concomitant symptoms
that Bob describes above. In that sense, there is a mental impairment.

It is likely that Bob experiences "good days" and "bad days". What should be
stressed, however, is that the specific concentration, focus and
attention span problems he describes do not mean that his capacity to reason
has been similarly impaired.

While it could be argued that Bob has some "loss of mental capability" due
to MS, the same could be argued of the persistent migraine sufferer. Indeed,
the symptoms are not dissimilar to those experienced increasingly as a
result of natural old age.

Before I could accept that Bob was not competent to carry on as a member of
the FACTNet board, I would need to know what medical advice was sought and
given that lead to this conclusion. Was the decision to remove him taken by
his fellow board members based on expert advice or "gut feeling"? I have had
no impression or evidence that Bob left FACTNet completely of his own
volition (and/or without pressure from his fellow board members).

Thus far, we have seen a coherent account by Shelley without a coherent
rebuttal in return. It is quite legitimate to ask the questions that have
been raised and equally legitimate to expect some official answers as soon
as possible (today?). Remember, we are discussing an organisation that
actively solicits donations. It is not unreasonable to ask about the
policies and structure of that organisation which are, after all, supposed
to be open.

[comp.org.eff.talk and misc.legal.computing removed from follow-ups - what
the hell does this thread/debate/topic have to do with them? I will leave
alt.fan.grady-ward in for the time being but its relevance there is also
questionable]

[Sister Clara]

In article <4vnqqp$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
marg...@aol.com (Margelis) wrote:

> Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

> From: stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson)
> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:03:29 GMT
> Message-ID: <sthomsonD...@netcom.com>
>
> Shelley:

> > When I was researching this article I made three attempts to
> >talk with you. The first time, shortly after Penny had been removed
> >from the board, you said there was no news. The second time, you
> >said there was lots of news but you refused to discuss it with me.
> >I wrote once more, suggesting that you had done something that you
> >should perhaps think twice about. You replied that you had no
> >idea what I meant.
>
> > You stonewalled me. That is why you did not have input >in
> >the article.
>

> From the way it looks, arnie has been extremely busy writing court briefs,
> firing lawyers, etc, and may not have
> felt he had time or energy to deal with PR at the moment.

"From the way it looks"? Either you know or you don't. Stop trying to muddy
the waters (forlorn hope).

Either it is important to set the record straight for the thousands of ars
readers (many of whom may donate or plan to donate to FACTNet) or it isn't.
That is assuming that the record is not straight to begin with.

How Arnie chooses to spend his time and decide his priorities is up to him.
But stories that remain unchallenged on Usenet become accepted as truth the
longer they remain that way. Arnie found the time to splutter at all of us
as an initial reaction to BJ. I am surprised he has not found the time to
issue a formal statement (including the requested reassurances) backed up by
facts.

>
> It's hard for me to imagine, however, that if you had informed him of the
> charges you were making in your article, such as the speculation that
> FACTNET was going to sue Bob Penny, he would have refused to set the
> record straight. Did you so inform him?

How can you inform someone who is not prepared to listen? Oh, sorry
Margaret, I forgot I was talking to *you*.

>
> If not, why not? Is it common journalistic practice (I'm asking--I don't
> know) to make such serious allegations without *informing* the potentially
> injured parties and allowing them to rebut them *before* publication?

Can't you read. She tried, goddammit. Maybe Arnie could have made an
appointment to talk to her sometime in December. Should we have had to wait
until then?

sheesh.

>
> Also, did you make any attempt to speak with Wollersheim?
> If not, why not?

Apparently he is "on the road" and "out of communication" until about
Thursday. Rather careless of him, in the circumstances, to choose this time
to be incommunicado, but there you go.

Funny thing about Wollersheim. He has seemingly never bothered to register
any kind of permanent Net presence as an individual but remains one of those
shadowy characters who relies on others to convey his point of view.

At least one can normally know where to find Arnie, even if he chooses not
to respond.

[Rod Keller]

William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: If BJ continues on in this manner, I will kill file it.

: 'Facts', rumors, claims and opinions must be double checked as per basic
: journalistic practices.
:
: That is not too much to ask. People can be hurt by careless
: amateur 'reporting'. If one wants to play reporter, one has an obligation
: to follow basic good reporter's practices and fact checking is a
: necessary part of that.

I almost never post this sort of follow-up, but I couldn't agree more.

--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com

[Rod Keller]

Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4vnasj$r...@netaxs.com>
: rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
: > I agree with Clara. BJ is openly biased, and shouldn't be confused with

: > real journalism. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.

: All papers and all journalists are biased. That includes whatever you happen

: to regard as "real journalism" (journalism that agrees with you?). At least
: BJ is open about it.
:
: As a matter of interest, Rod, how do you KNOW it was a hatchet job? Care to
: share whatever information you clearly have with the rest of us? After all,
: to be so certain you must know more than the other poor mortals on this
: newsgroup.......

Now _I'm_ being put on the defense? Forget it. Let the jackals eat
static, to mix a metaphor.

[Rod Keller]

sea...@super.zippo.com wrote:
: In article <4vnasj$r...@netaxs.com>, rke...@netaxs.com says...
: >Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>
: >: This is "Biased Journalism". People should accept it on its own terms.
: >:

: >: How can a publication that describes itself quite openly as biased be
: >: expected to be fair as well? <grin>
: >:
: >: The charges and speculations contained within the publication have as much
: >: standing, authority and accuracy as its readers wish to give it.
: >:
: >: The charges should be easy to rebut (if anyone is willing to do so) if they
: >: are wrong or inaccurate.

: >

: >I agree with Clara. BJ is openly biased, and shouldn't be confused with
: >real journalism. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.

: Clara said nothing of the sort and the twisting of her words is at best

: deceptive. If you have *facts*, then please post them. If you wish to add your
: opinion then please do so without claiming someone else said them and you are
: agreeing with them. I am sure Clara will let you know her level of "agreement"
: with what you posted.

I thought my word-twisting was obvious. It was not intended to be
deceptive. I have no facts I care to post at this time. This
mini-inquisition deserves no more fuel for its fire.

[Rod Keller]

Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: How Arnie chooses to spend his time and decide his priorities is up to him.

: But stories that remain unchallenged on Usenet become accepted as truth the
: longer they remain that way. Arnie found the time to splutter at all of us
: as an initial reaction to BJ. I am surprised he has not found the time to
: issue a formal statement (including the requested reassurances) backed up by
: facts.

I'm not surprised, and I doubt this hatchet job will become accepted
truth. As has been pointed out, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily
my friend. You guys are proving that all over again. Let them eat static,
Arnie. This assumption that you owe somebody a formal statement is
bullshit.

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dean Benjamin):

>Shelley Thompson (in **Biased Journalism** V2no16, August 22, 1996):
>> On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc session
>> on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had been
>> removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental capability
>> due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed FACTNet in jeopardy.
>> Fellow directors can be held liable for his actions, if he has any
>> impairment that would interfere with his duties, Lerma said. We
>> sorta had no choice.
>
>Sister Clara:
>> What "loss of mental capability" was due to MS? I am very
>> interested in hearing what effect having MS is supposed to have on
>> Bob Penny's mental capabilities.
>
>
>Last September 1995, in email, Bob Penny described his MS symptoms as
>follows:
>
> The symptoms [of MS] can be (and often are) muscular control, but
> they can also be cognitive. I wobble when I walk, but that is
> much less disturbing to me than the problems with concentration,
> focus, and attention span. I often cannot remember what I was
> doing or thinking about just a few moments ago.
>
>Since MS is a progressive disease, his symptoms are probably worse
>these days.

I talked to him about a week ago. He is fading fast. Apparently he
is only really coherent for a few hours in the morning.

It's sad.

Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>

[Rich Burroughs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[newsgroups trimmed to a.r.s.]

On 25 Aug 1996 11:53:01 GMT, d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dean Benjamin) wrote:

[snip]

> Last September 1995, in email, Bob Penny described his MS symptoms as
> follows:
>
> The symptoms [of MS] can be (and often are) muscular control, but
> they can also be cognitive. I wobble when I walk, but that is
> much less disturbing to me than the problems with concentration,
> focus, and attention span. I often cannot remember what I was
> doing or thinking about just a few moments ago.
>
> Since MS is a progressive disease, his symptoms are probably worse
> these days.

I seem to recall reading something like that here on a.r.s. as well, in
the context of his court case -- that the MS was making it hard for
him to concentrate and prepare his case, that he was fatigued. Was
that in one of the declarations that was posted here?

Rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMiCQJynhWc34xW2VAQFRgwf8DKd3vSitI6+nJxxvESx7dmoHNtwJK0jV
ausxkSSxrprMpLesuLLhwU7OUSd4s8tRXdR1QTmrrsG/xznJiUVF9LrfV2NQNgsz
xSfrhB4Kv4Ug26yantkIsxaddeWGXpQo0yIHKK/qfQ7IOmBAaCFYbEtWQSVfAE03
XOt6DIAzE++9n8gofxvUlSh3fLUUsURPJROlLASaeskds3zAKX6sX12BHAFEfQvw
3sfCrtH51vN6YJgc2CL06djJbu7vCdkc18LRxzDuu+aUrX6FWevxdwp0g3ph0flf
CeFCaxNRv8uxtEp4H8YKXDeMqGACKRfH+d2wOQ+e3KyTFRz1RDJ2kA==
=mXfk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

[Rich Burroughs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[newsgroups trimmed to a.r.s.]

On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:19:07 GMT, mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong)
wrote:

[snip]

> I understand that Shelley attempted to get Arnie Lerma to comment on the
> article three times, and he refused three times.

I read that, too. It certainly seems like she did make an honest
effort.

I do wonder if she gave Arnie a chance to comment on the specific
allegations she made in the article, though. Did she just try to
contact him three times saying that she was writing an article, or
did she actually spell out for him the allegations and ask for his
comment?

You know, like in "All the President's Men," where right before they
run the article they call the White House for comment (and get "no
comment," or something like that).

IANAJ, but it's my understanding that this is done for at least a few
reasons:

1) It's fair.

2) It helps with accuracy (after all, Lerma and Wollersheim may have
the most accurate knowledge about what their plans are).

3) I also believe that it is some protection in case of a libel suit. IANAL
either, though, and am not certain of this.

> I also understand that Shelley had more than one anon source, and their stories
> confirmed each other.

Again, this is certainly a judgement call on Shelley's part, and there's
no way we can know what was going on. Lots of sources that
confirm each other don't remove the responsibility to contact a
person being accused for their comment, though, IMHO.

BTW, I am not claiming that Shelley did not do this, or trying to be
critical of her. I enjoy her publication. I'm just wondering if Arnie's
gripes about the article are legitimate or not.

> I would like to see a reasoned rebuttal from Arnie, and an assurance that
> Factnet will not attack Bob Penny... in place of the incoherent accusations I
> have just read his followup to the BJ post.

I would, too.

I'm also wondering if Mr. Penny was approached for an interview.

Rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMiCQfynhWc34xW2VAQGpJAf/YX8hv6DMrkvWEYcdSzFaDrBY/MmgSdXr
at/mCXP3e1AZn/r9upUy8RcGFZ5Ff/jaterrVBI/TYWn9cC4MNXKzo3r4oH8Pf9k
JrpWBLjIltoED9Pc192sEHMOjJrnlMkrhGNC/YEuwEtX+ZUfYWEKhE6IEhe4xNt3
tSIIboSMwoMkTLogYL7Oj6dhB73OmWLs4ElEv51+bNLDE/Cj0Ft4nDQM94wlCBQl
E5Q0qm4WuQJ2hLPYWkxjrzv7JoelOnBHcOdODjrrL5+0KLh7oPW8WGKEclm2sRPg
X7ZGGjyDv8gAsttjFpLXdo2XSJltfqexitgaVqvhARFYQlxHB7hvlw==
=e1sl

[Steve A]

wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:

>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,

>Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>>(Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>>
>>> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>>> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
>>[snip]
>>> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>>>
>>> this is vicious...
>>[big snip]
>>
>>Shelley,
>>
>>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>
>>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>>the ones contained in your article.
>>
>>
>>

> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>
>If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>things.

Sounds like those things were done, Pope. Sounds to me like Shelley
got herself a juicy story, tried to do the decent thing by Arnie who
"no commented" his way through the whole piece.

In the circumstances, I think she did all she could: I suppose she
could have done what British news media tend to do, viz "We contacted
the Acme Pollution Company for a response to this story, but they
declined to be interviewed.", which would have covered her ass a bit
more pre-emptively, but hey! she's a baby journalist, with stuph to
learn.

ObURLS: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
--
"Your're obviously loaded with so many owerts and withholds that you
have committed, that you're lightyears away from being able to confront
the workable data about the overt-motivator sequence"
[Jesper Skovlund, Scieno apologist on a.r.s.]

My other hat's a fedora, too. And it's Black.

IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, victim of the cult of Scientology

[Marina Chong]

On 25 Aug 1996 08:18:59 -0500 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
wrote in article <4vpjs3$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:

[snip]

>
>
>No fact checking? It is not journalism, it is just rumor mongering.
>Time to change this E-journal's name if one is not going to practice
>journalism.
>

>If BJ continues on in this manner, I will kill file it.
>'Facts', rumors, claims and opinions must be double checked as per basic
>journalistic practices.

On what basis do you assume that no fact-checking was done?

Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
<sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
on her part to get his side of the story.

Did you check the facts before you posted your article?

[Marina Chong]

On 25 Aug 1996 08:12:07 -0500 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
wrote in article <4vpjf7$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:

>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,
>Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[snip]

>>
>>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>
>>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>>the ones contained in your article.
>>
>>
>>
> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>

You are making the unwarranted assumption that Shelley Thomson did not "get two
confirmations of alleged facts before publishing". On what basis do you do this?

Please read Shelley's response to Arnie Lerma,
Message ID: <sthomsonD...@netcom.com>,
for clarification.

>If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>things.

Shelley tried. Three times. Arnie refused. Three times.

>Journalism 101.

How patronizing.

[Sister Clara]

In article <4vpjf7$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:

> In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,
> Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:

> >Shelley,

> >
> >Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
> >
> >IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
> >a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
> >the ones contained in your article.
> >
> >
> >
> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
> alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
> should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
> double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>

> If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
> journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
> things.

...as Shelley has said she tried to do and was stonewalled.

You can criticise Shelley as much as you all like but the central
allegations remain and are thus far unanswered. As I have said in other
posts, I do not know whether the story is accurate or not. But, as I have
seen no definitive statement that contradicts her assertions (either from
Arnie himself or from anyone who might know facts that directly contradict
her account), I have to wonder whether her speculations are a little too
accurate for comfort for some people.

I do not understand how Shelley can be accused of gutter journalism when
those condemning her have no more idea of the truth of the matter than I
have. If you have facts to contradict the essential story, then post them.

Accusing a person of bad journalism with no evidence is simply bluster.
Hell, if the kinds of allegations that Shelley is making about FACTNet had
been made instead about Co$ you would have all been falling over yourselves
praising her and joining in the condemnation of such an unpleasant
organisation.

There are times when the sheer hypocrisy and double-standards I see in this
newsgroup really get through to me.

Now all join in....

"FACTNet good, Co$ bad, FACTNet good, Co$ bad...."

(with apologies to George Orwell - "Animal Farm").

[Marina Chong]

On 25 Aug 1996 14:20:12 GMT rke...@voicenet.com (Rod Keller) wrote in article
<4vpnes$e...@gnews2.voicenet.com>:

>Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <4vnasj$r...@netaxs.com>
>: rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:

>: > I agree with Clara. BJ is openly biased, and shouldn't be confused with
>: > real journalism. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.

>: All papers and all journalists are biased. That includes whatever you happen
>: to regard as "real journalism" (journalism that agrees with you?). At least
>: BJ is open about it.
>:
>: As a matter of interest, Rod, how do you KNOW it was a hatchet job? Care to
>: share whatever information you clearly have with the rest of us? After all,
>: to be so certain you must know more than the other poor mortals on this
>: newsgroup.......
>
>Now _I'm_ being put on the defense? Forget it. Let the jackals eat
>static, to mix a metaphor.

If you make a statement like that you should be prepared to defend it.

[Marina Chong]

On 25 Aug 1996 14:30:56 GMT rke...@voicenet.com (Rod Keller) wrote in article
<4vpo30$e...@gnews2.voicenet.com>:

>Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: How Arnie chooses to spend his time and decide his priorities is up to him.
>: But stories that remain unchallenged on Usenet become accepted as truth the
>: longer they remain that way. Arnie found the time to splutter at all of us
>: as an initial reaction to BJ. I am surprised he has not found the time to
>: issue a formal statement (including the requested reassurances) backed up by
>: facts.
>
>I'm not surprised, and I doubt this hatchet job will become accepted
>truth. As has been pointed out, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily
>my friend. You guys are proving that all over again. Let them eat static,
>Arnie. This assumption that you owe somebody a formal statement is
>bullshit.

Hatchet job? If someone posts information that you do not like it automatically
becomes a hatchet job?

As has already been mentioned several times in this thread, Shelley checked the
story with several (anonymous) sources. Her three attempts to get Lerma's side
of the story were rejected by him.

What is she supposed to do, trash the article based on one person's refusal to
comment?

It interesting that your reaction (as evidenced in your posts in the ***BJ***
thread) to the story is an automatic "Someone did a hatchet job on Arnie Lerma,
and anyone who has questions is not his friend" and not "This is a disturbing
story. Is there any more information available that will either confirm or deny
it?"

Do you have any information that confirms your opinions on this matter? If so,
I'd like to hear it.

If the Factnet board has no intention to treat Bob Penny in the way as outlined
in ***BJ*** then let it say so. It's easy enough and costs nothing.

[James J. Lippard]

In article <4vpjf7$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,

William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,
>Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:

>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>>(Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>>
>>> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>>> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
>>[snip]
>>> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>>>
>>> this is vicious...
>>[big snip]
>>

>>Shelley,
>>
>>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>
>>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>>the ones contained in your article.
>>
>>
>>
> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>
>If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>things.
>

>Journalism 101.

By my reading, Shelley *did* have two independent sources, and *did* ask
Arnie for comment--three times--on top of that.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04

[Deirdre]

I agree. Shelley, good job, sorry for the flame wars. Carry on, tally ho
and we'll get any corrections noted.

_Deirdre

In article <4vqa4p$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, lip...@primenet.com
(James J. Lippard) wrote:

> By my reading, Shelley *did* have two independent sources, and *did*
> ask Arnie for comment--three times--on top of that.

--
http://www.sover.net/~deirdre

[Robert Martin]

William Barwell, God's gift to NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800, brightened
alt.religion.scientology with the words:

> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>
>If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>things.
>

You must be speaking ex cathedra today, pope, because this is just what I was
about to post.

Further, I don't see what possible harm could have come from sending the
full text of this report to all concerned parties in advance. The
considerations in print publication that make such practice unwise
(advertising, prior retraint, etcetera) don't really apply here, imo, for a
variety of reasons. One of them being that this is strictly amateur
reporting, that shows even less reponsibility than most newspaper work.

For instance, a key point brought up is a question of Bob Penney's
competency. There is no indication that Shelley attempted to learn the truth
of the matter; she leaves as subject to discussion & speculation on Usenet --
that doesn't seem much of a favor to Penney. How much effort would it have
taken to clear this up? And, if Shelley had determined that Penney is,
indeed, appreciably impaired, how much of this story remains "newsworthy?"

Lerma's reaction to the story has not been very forthcoming. But I'd feel
pretty daunted myself, if I were being forced to discuss the intimate matters
of a friend or associate with all of Usenet, as if everyone participating in
ARS were not-so-silent partners in the lawsuit.

Yes, FACTnet accepts donations, and therefore should be accountable -- *to
donors.* Beyond that, what Arnold Lerma chooses to share with the
world-at-large is a measure of his public-spiritedness. Private and public
issues can intertwine quite easily in a case like this. No one owes complete
revelation of their private life, or that of others, to anyone who asks in
the name of "accountability."

Shelley's account of her three emails to Lerma offer no indication of what
material she was about to report. One has to wonder what informs her concept
of journalistic practice.

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Robert Martin]

Marina Chong, God's gift to The Knights of Xenu, brightened
alt.religion.scientology with the words:

[snip]

>Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
>the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
>on her part to get his side of the story.

Some sources. She was apparently unable to determine the truth about Mr.
Penney's competence, which is a major lynchpin in the story. And her account
of her three emails to Lerma do not indicate that she even hinted at what she
was about to post to Usenet.

Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.

Penney's condition is known to people on ars; it would have been a relatively
simple matter for Shelley to ask around and find out. If she failed to do so,
that's lazy amateur reporting. If she did so and left the information because
it failed to support her premise, that's fraudulent reporting.

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Diane Richardson]

rke...@voicenet.com (Rod Keller) wrote:

>Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: How Arnie chooses to spend his time and decide his priorities is up to him.
>: But stories that remain unchallenged on Usenet become accepted as truth the
>: longer they remain that way. Arnie found the time to splutter at all of us
>: as an initial reaction to BJ. I am surprised he has not found the time to
>: issue a formal statement (including the requested reassurances) backed up by
>: facts.

>I'm not surprised, and I doubt this hatchet job will become accepted
>truth. As has been pointed out, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily
>my friend. You guys are proving that all over again. Let them eat static,
>Arnie. This assumption that you owe somebody a formal statement is
>bullshit.

The assumption that a.r.s. readers owe Factnet any financial support
might also constitute bullshit according to your thinking, Rod.

Arnie Lerma had enough time to post any number of posts soliciting
contributions to Factnet in the past couple of weeks. Surely, if he
wishes people to contribute money to the organization, he can find the
time to provide an explanation for his and Larry Wollersheim's recent
actions.

Without that explanation, it's absurd to believe that financial
support to Factnet will continue.

Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com

[Steve A]

sde...@blkbox.com (Stuart P. Derby) wrote:

>In article <321cde51...@204.245.3.50>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev.
>Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>
>: stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson):
>:
>: >An anonymous attorney has left a message for someone connected with
>: >the defense. The defense should investigate the top 100 copyright
>: >attorneys in the USA. Each of them recently received a box of
>: >documents from RTC marked "Confidential" and a letter implying that
>: >RTC might be interested in hiring the attorney. The hiring offer
>: >never came, but these attorneys now are barred from representing
>: >defendants against RTC because they received the "Confidential"
>: >documents!
>: >
>: > It's clever, and dirty. We are awed.
>:
>: It's the scieno way
>
>Not being an attorney, I don't know for sure, but I think it would be
>prima facie evidence of litigating in bad faith.

There's plenty of evidence of that already. The problem seems to be in
getting the courts to recognise it: perhaps rightly, they fall over
themselves not to be seen to be preventing Scientology from getting a
fair crack of the whip, but in doing so, seem to be perfectly happy to
allow Scientology's tactics to deny their opponents a fair crack of
the whip.

Examples? The abusive discovery tactics practiced against Grady Ward,
including bare-faced lies about the duration of the deposition and
personal abuse and harassment by attorney Hogan: Judge Whyte is
clearly aware of what has happened, from comments he has made, yet he
has stopped short of straightforward censure.

Another example: Scientology has obtained, in the last 2 years, three
ex-parte writs of seizure in three different jurisdictions with three
different judged. *ALL* of those writs have now been vacated, and in
most if not all cases, the judge has expressed grave reservations with
the manner in which the raids were carried out. Furthermore, in at
least two of those cases, Scientology has yet to obey the orders of
the judges in returning the items stolen (after all it was fraudulent
removal) to the victims of the raids.

It is my belief that, if an organisation is involved in a legal
action, and is in default in some way with regard to duties it has
been obliged to perform (like restoring the status quo ante after a
raid under a vacated writ) or failing to pay a judgement, and assuming
that no appeal is pending, then that organisation should, quite
simply, be denied further access to the courts to make new pleadings
or start new actions, REGARDLESS OF THEIR MERIT, until they have
discharged their obligations.

>Also, if an attorney were
>involved in preparing and sending out those documents, I would think that
>such a bad faith effort to deny effective representation should be
>sactionable by that attorney's bar association.
>
> Is somebody following up on this?

I sincerely hope so.

[Sister Clara]

In article <32214b51...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

> Marina Chong, God's gift to The Knights of Xenu, brightened
> alt.religion.scientology with the words:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
> ><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
> >the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
> >on her part to get his side of the story.
>
> Some sources. She was apparently unable to determine the truth about Mr.
> Penney's competence, which is a major lynchpin in the story. And her account
> of her three emails to Lerma do not indicate that she even hinted at what she
> was about to post to Usenet.

Bob's competence or otherwise is a matter of _medical_ opinion.

>
> Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
> physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
> matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
> Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.

Well, that's damned odd because others seem to be very forthcoming with
their opinions on that matter.

>
> Penney's condition is known to people on ars;

Oh, is it? Bob suffers from Multiple Sclerosis which is primarily a physical
disease, though there may be _some_ mental problems associated with it. Any
assessment of Bob's mental condition is a matter for doctors, not for the
readers of a newsgroup relying on subjective (and probably ill-informed)
accounts.

> it would have been a relatively
> simple matter for Shelley to ask around and find out. If she failed to do so,
> that's lazy amateur reporting. If she did so and left the information because
> it failed to support her premise, that's fraudulent reporting.

Oh, I see, the vilification of Shelley continues. I wondered what you were
getting at. You give a limited range of possibilities (where you admit you
do not know the answers) all of which are supposed to indicate that Shelley
is guilty of laziness and/or fraudulence.

Far easier to shoot the messenger, isn't it?

Actually, I disagree with your central premise regarding Bob's condition as
being "a major lynchpin" in the story. I think the major question to be
answered is whether or not the possibility exists that Bob will be either
sued by the remaining members of FACTnet or subject to the famous
"cut-throat defence" whereby all the blame is assigned to one individual by
the other defendants in a court case.

And the silence from those who may know the answers to these questions has
so far been deafening.

[newsgroups trimmed AGAIN]

[rne...@cybercom.net]

Kim Baker has asked me to post the following response to
Arnie's reply to Shelley's **BJ** article on FACTNet:

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:13:15 SAST-2

Re:
> >**Biased Journalism** Volume 2, issue 16 August 22, 1996.
> >Late News: Tom Klemesrud, sysop of support.com, has settled with
> >RTC for $50,000. The settlement, which was mediated by his insurance
> >company, includes no admission of liability. Netcom, sued along
> >with Klemesrud, recently settled upon undisclosed terms. This leaves
> >Dennis Erlich standing alone.
> >

Arnie wrote:
> alone is how the cult likes to attack people.

Exactly. Which is why *groups* such as CAN and
FACTNet are at the top of their list of enemies.
The law protects *organisations*, but it does not
protect individuals against organisations. As we
may have noticed. No money, no rights.

[...]

> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>
> this is vicious...

Very good point. *Who* did provide that information?
I believe, however, that Shelley was acting in good
faith - she did say she was open to correction,
and further information.

> Colorado law states that if you maintain a board member who is
> incompetent, the other members become liable for his actions.
>
> (not past actions while he was doing better) -
>
> we had no choice, the fiction you describe above is fiction, and I ask you
> to evaluate who is feeding you this drivel and determine why...

I would agree. The article gave the impression that Lawrence
Wollersheim turned on Bob Penny. Off-loaded him. That is exactly
what OSA Invest would want people to think. I would have been
*very* surprised if this did happen, because that was not how
I knew Lawrence.

However: what of an impassioned plea by a judge to Scientology
to recuse Bob Penny from the case? The man is *ill*, he is
suffering, and the REAL point here, the ACTUAL FOCUS of this is:

What kind of "religion" would hound a dying man to his
grave? THAT is the point here. Let's stick to the ROOT
of the problem.

> > Will FACTNet sue Penny?
>
> ???? RUBBISH ????

That's all *I* needed to hear.
I thought as much.


Waiting for a little while longer.....
Kim Baker
26 August 1996.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

[Martin G. V. Hunt]

Rod Keller (rke...@voicenet.com) writes:
> William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> : If BJ continues on in this manner, I will kill file it.

> : 'Facts', rumors, claims and opinions must be double checked as per basic
> : journalistic practices.

> :
> : That is not too much to ask. People can be hurt by careless
> : amateur 'reporting'. If one wants to play reporter, one has an obligation
> : to follow basic good reporter's practices and fact checking is a
> : necessary part of that.
>
> I almost never post this sort of follow-up, but I couldn't agree more.

Quite right; I was talking with Arnie on IRC about all this, but I
wouldn't have posted it to ars without at least sending a note to Bob
and Laurence and asking for confirmation.

Maybe Biased Opinion would be a better name? Journalism is a pretty
lofty word, and if it's going to be used then its ethic should be
lived up to...especially over such an obviously sensitive issue.

--
Cogito, ergo sum. "our position on the multiple posts to alt.religion.
scientology - or to any other newsgroup for that matter - is simple.
Anyone who wishes to express himself or herself is free do so thanks
to the United States Constitution." - Scientology PR Debbie Blair.

[Robert Martin]

Sister Clara, God's gift to None, brightened alt.religion.scientology with
the words:

>In article <32214b51...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
> fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

[snip]

quoting me:
>> Some sources. She was apparently unable to determine the truth about Mr.
>> Penney's competence, which is a major lynchpin in the story. And her account
>> of her three emails to Lerma do not indicate that she even hinted at what she
>> was about to post to Usenet.
>
>Bob's competence or otherwise is a matter of _medical_ opinion.

Are you saying it's of no relevance to his sitting on the board of FACTnet?

Reagan's Alzheimer's is a matter of _medical_ opinion too. Does it having
nothing to do with his final years in the Presidency? What the hell is your
point? I didn't make a public issue of Penney's condition, Shelley did.

>> Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
>> physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
>> matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
>> Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.
>
>Well, that's damned odd because others seem to be very forthcoming with
>their opinions on that matter.

Again, because Shelley made it a public issue. Arnaldo is not obligated to be
whatever you wish him to be.

I can imagine legitimate reasons for his reticence at this moment. I reserve
judgement until I have some better basis than this flimsy story.

>>
>> Penney's condition is known to people on ars;
>
>Oh, is it?

It isn't? You know it is, so what's the point of this rhetorical question
except to be irritating?

>Bob suffers from Multiple Sclerosis which is primarily a physical
>disease, though there may be _some_ mental problems associated with it.

You obviously are unaware that MS is a physical disease of the _central_
nervous_system_. It can be extremely mentally debilitating in some cases.

Various people, most notably Dennis, have made comments to indicate that they
are quite familiar with Bob Penney's current debilitated state.

> Any
>assessment of Bob's mental condition is a matter for doctors, not for the
>readers of a newsgroup relying on subjective (and probably ill-informed)
>accounts.

Shelley hung her story on thr premise that Arnaldo Lerma lied when he said
that Penney's condition was the reason he was removed from the board. But she
did not clarify Lerma's account, or do any checking into its credibility --
at least none that made it into the piece.

Shelley thereby made Penney's condition a matter of "ill-informed"
speculation. Not me.

>> it would have been a relatively
>> simple matter for Shelley to ask around and find out. If she failed to do so,
>> that's lazy amateur reporting. If she did so and left the information because
>> it failed to support her premise, that's fraudulent reporting.
>
>Oh, I see, the vilification of Shelley continues.

Who is vilifying whom? What basis is there in *fact* for Shelley's blue-sky
conjecture that FACTnet is about to sue Penney?

Arnaldo Lerma was on IRC, telling the world that Penney was removed from the
board less than 24 hours after the decision was reached. Is this the act of a
man planning to detonate his own reputation and credibility by sueing him?

There is no factual basis for Shelley's allegations that FACTnet will sue
Penney other than "anonymous sources." Her mind is working overtime, and
she's got you and others doing the same.

You are upset with me for vilifying Shelley? I called her an amateur and
noted that there is no character flaw in being an amateur.

She, in the guise of reporting, called Lerma a liar, and suggested greater
evils to come -- with no substantiation of charges whatsoever!

How *dare* you say I am vilifying anyone!

> I wondered what you were
>getting at.

My post was in plain english. What is with you? What are these pointless jabs
doing here? Can't we just discuss the issue?

>You give a limited range of possibilities (where you admit you
>do not know the answers) all of which are supposed to indicate that Shelley
>is guilty of laziness and/or fraudulence.

Not all -- either. Either she failed to do her homework on this story, or she
did her homework and left out what didn't support her premise. I've made my
living as a writer for over twenty years, I know an incomplete story when I
see one.

It's Shelley's report. There are a limited number of explanations for flawed
reporting.

>Far easier to shoot the messenger, isn't it?

Huh? The messenger rolled in with a message -- that Penney was off the board
of FACTnet.

She then followed up with a tale from nowhere that FACTnet's next step would
be to sue Penney. No newspaper would ever run a story as flimsy as this, even
about its worst enemy. Lerma is, or at least was, assumed to be on our side,
remember?

Now you are ready to lynch him -- and me alongside him for "vilifying
Shelley." Please do me a favor and stop being such a fucking hypocrite, okay?

I don't mind the message, it's the speculation based on an "anonymous source"
that bugs me deeply.

Just like everyone else, on hearing that Penney was removed from the board,
my sympathies went out to him. But I am not going to go frothing into a
fantasy about FACTnet sueing him without some *credible basis in fact.*

My guess (and it's only a guess) about the anonymous source is Bob Penney
himself, who is possibly worried about the possibility of being sued by his
former boardmates, and possibly angry as well. I sympathize, but I don't
think it's likely. If Penney is Shelley's primary or only source, this story
is *very* deeply flawed..

>Actually, I disagree with your central premise regarding Bob's condition as
>being "a major lynchpin" in the story. I think the major question to be
>answered is whether or not the possibility exists that Bob will be either
>sued by the remaining members of FACTnet or subject to the famous
>"cut-throat defence" whereby all the blame is assigned to one individual by
>the other defendants in a court case.

That question rests on whether or not Arnaldo lied on IRC when he offered his
own explanation of Penney's removal. "Whether Arnaldo lied" is the question
that hangs in part on Penney's current condition. It's an issue of
credibility..

If Arnaldo's explanation of why Penney was removed has any credibility, one
can choose to take him at his word. Shelley's story brought up the issue of
Penney's condition, but did failed to thoroughlyy examine its possible
validity.

Instead, she offered a *highly speculative* counter-explanation of Penney's
removal, based on "anonymous sources." There are numerous people with
"agendas" involved here, you know. Do you have 100% trust that Shelley has
not been duped by someone who might wish to sow discord in the ranks? It
neednt be CoS -- there's any number of "critics" with the knife out for other
"critics." But I wouldn't rule out disinformation from the Halls of Hubbard,
either -- "anonymity" won't let us rule out anything!

While anonymous sources are great for PR leaks, it is considered a
journalistic error to use anonymous sources in a story that impugns
character. In such cases, anonymous sources are *supposed* to be used as an
aid in finding sources that are willing go on record.

We know that ALL of these guys are 'in extremis' with regard to money, their
futures, and 'the cause.' Not many of us are about to do what they did and
get our asses in a legal sling.

Knowing that, ALL of these guys would deserve at the very least a fair break.
That means that "amateur" reporters should be very careful about what they
publish. That means that Shelley should have spent a little more time on
research. It means that Lerma should have been advised of the nature of the
allegations prior to publication. Most reporters are taught this at school,
and have it further drummed into them in the field.

Shelley does remarkably well for someone without the benefit of that
training. But the fact is that she's an amateur, and as such should have been
triply cautious in running a story that impugns character.

So, according to the report, Lerma is probably lying. But he was never told
that he would be called a liar on Usenet, was he?

You say *I'm* engaging in vilification?

>And the silence from those who may know the answers to these questions has
>so far been deafening.

"This is rubbish" is not exactly silence. Where I come from, it's taken to
mean innaccuracy, untruth, bad reporting ... how do you figure it to be
silence?

I would also like to see a more detailed accounting from FACTnet of just what
is going on. Obviously, Arnaldo doesn't feel prepared to do that at this
moment.

But why the rush to assume sinister motives? Not only is he up to his neck
trying to take control in a chaotic litigation, but there are complex issues
involved -- for one thing it hardly makes sense to divulge your legal
strategy versus the Co$ in ARS, now does it?

>[newsgroups trimmed AGAIN]

What are you gonna do, hit me with your rosary? I didn't change the
newsgroups field because the 2 additional groups seemed appropriate. If they
don't seem appropriate to you, you may trim them, or simply choose not to
participate, but no one is obligated to agree with you on cross-posting, so
please spare me your complaints.

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Margelis]

Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

From: dei...@sover.net (Deirdre)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 02:15:07 -0400
Message-ID: <deirdre-2608...@pm0a5.new.sover.net>

>I agree. Shelley, good job,

GOOD JOB???? GOOD JOB????

I'm not into "vilifying" Shelley (quote from Sis C.) but to take perhaps
the lowest point of BJ's history (and BJ has done plenty of excellent
word, IMHO) and characterize it thus is incomprehensible to me.

>sorry for the flame wars. Carry on, tally ho
>and we'll get any corrections noted.

>_Deirdre

>In article <4vqa4p$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, >lip...@primenet.com
>(James J. Lippard) wrote:

>> By my reading, Shelley *did* have two independent sources, and *did*
>> ask Arnie for comment--three times--on top of that.

'Snot sufficient, Dierdre and Jim.

"Ask Arnie for comment"? *Comment on what?* Don't you think that if
Shelley had given arnie *any* indication of the serious and--according to
arnie's post on the subject--*false* charges she was preparing to print,
arnie WOULD have commented?

How could arnie possibly be expected to have commented on or refuted
something which he had no idea existed?

According to his statement in this thread, he and Larry have no intention
of suing Bob. Is he supposed to read Shelley's mind and refute an
allegation she has not taken the trouble to acquaint him with? Why not
deny that they're going to string Bob up by the thumbs, or have him
abducted by UFOs so he will no longer be a problem to them?

My somewhat simplified
version of what apparently went on is thus (corrections invited,of course,
Shelley and Arnie):

SHELLEY:
Hey, arnie, what's goin' on with Bob?

ARNIE:
Nuthin'

(later)

SHELLEY?
So, what's the scoop, arn?

ARNIE:
I don't wanna talk about it.

(later)

SHELLEY:
Hey, arnie, I think you better think twice about what you're doing.

ARNIE:
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Fuck off, Shell.

SHELLEY:
Well, fuck you too, Arnie Lerma. I'll just write it without you, then.

What's missing in this little series of vignettes? The final scene in
which Shelley returns with her completed article, written without arnie's
input:

SHELLEY:
Hey, Arn, just thought I'd give you a last chance to respond to some of
the serious allegations that have been made about you and Larry. For
instance, that you're thinking of suing Bob Penny...

ARNIE:
Whaat!????

RUBBISH!

Complete and utter rubbish, - where are you getting this
CRAP!?????

There is no poterntial for a lawsuit - I cant even discuss this
without spitting.

We are continuing to stand together.
you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.

(The above five sentences are direct quotes from arnie's post in this
thread. Wouldn't it have been better if he had been given a chance to
say this to Shelley *before* she printed her story?)

Once again, in hopes that this will sink in:

HOW CAN ARNIE BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO DENY SHELLEY'S
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS, IF HE WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF THEM?

>--
>http://www.sover.net/~deirdre

Margaret H.

[Joe Harrington]

Considering the sensitive nature and the critical timing of the several
legal cases involving FACTNET and its directors, Wollersheim and Lerma
would have been very imprudent to get into any lengthy discussions about
personnel matters or litigation strategies. Perhaps Arnie erred by not
being more tactful in not responding to Shelley's queries.

I've known Lawrence Wollersheim for several years and have exchanged
e-mail with Bob Penny during the same period. Bob never made it secret
that his health was deteriorating or that at times his illness would be
very incapacitating, aggravated by the oppressive Scientology litigation.

People can speculate all they want that FACTNET would sue a former
director, but to me, this is total nonsense and Arnie's non-discussion
of allegations made by anonymous parties can not be construed as evidence
as some internal coverup or cabal. More than any other organization still
around, FACTNET has been at the forefront of getting the real stories
out about Scientology.

Joe

[Marina Chong]

On Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:10:20 GMT fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote
in article <32214b51...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:

>Marina Chong, God's gift to The Knights of Xenu, brightened
>alt.religion.scientology with the words:
>

>[snip]
>
>>Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
>><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
>>the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
>>on her part to get his side of the story.
>

>Some sources. She was apparently unable to determine the truth about Mr.
>Penney's competence, which is a major lynchpin in the story. And her account
>of her three emails to Lerma do not indicate that she even hinted at what she
>was about to post to Usenet.
>

Ah. So you know the "truth" about Mr Penny's competence, do you?

Do please enlighten us.

If Shelley's report is inaccurate, why has no one actually refuted it point by
point? All I have seen so far is bluster, complaints and accusations from Arnie
and a few amazingly uncritical supporters.

As i said in an earlier post: why do we get cries of "it's a hatchet job! anyone
who dares to ask questions is an enemy" instead of "let's have more information
so we can get a better idea as to what is really going on"?

What is required now is simple:

1. A reasoned rebuttal. Show us exactly where the article is inaccurate.

2. A simple statement that FACTNet will not turn on Bob Penny. If FACTNet does
not intend to act dishonourably it will cost ~absolutely nothing~ to say so.

Indeed, what we've got to date is a diatribe on a.r.s. that answers no questions
and accuses Shelley of being an OSA stooge (unwitting or otherwise), and an
episode on IRC in which Arnie said "fuck you" in response to a polite suggestion
that "a statement signed by you and LW to the effect that you were letting Penny
out of the suit & would pay his legal expense would go far to quiet doubts".

>Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
>physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
>matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
>Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.

Let's not forget that the **BJ** article is not all about the state of Penny's
health. The personality conflicts that resulted in the resignation or dismissal
of the other board members; the disagreement over case strategy that had
Wollersheim and Lerma on one side and Penny and Faegre & Benson on the other;
the matter of the FACTNet CDs; the Coregis funds; the ~very~ short interval
between F&B's resignation from the case and Penny's dismissal -- these are all
germane and suggest that Penny's removal from the board was not prompted only by
his condition.

I have no knowledge of the effects of multiple sclerosis and I will leave
readers to peruse the other threads where it is being discussed.

Now, ~I~ don't know how accurate the **BJ** report is. If you (Robert), or
Arnie, or anyone has ~facts~ with which to correct any inaccuracies, please post
them or email to Shelley Thomson. Shelley has indicated that she will be pleased
to publish any such corrections in the next issue of **BJ**.

To FACTNet: Here's your chance to get things straight. Hadn't you better get
cracking?

M

[followups set to a.r.s. -- is this thread *really* on-topic in:
comp.org.eff.talk
misc.legal.computing
alt.fan.grady-ward? ]

--
Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, Joker/Degrader
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

$cientology drove Noah Lottick and Richard Collins to suicide
mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@super.zippo.com

[Margelis]

[Robert Martin]

Marina Chong, God's gift to The Knights of Xenu, brightened
alt.religion.scientology with the words:
[snip]

>>>Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
>>><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
>>>the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
>>>on her part to get his side of the story.
>>
>>Some sources. She was apparently unable to determine the truth about Mr.
>>Penney's competence, which is a major lynchpin in the story. And her account
>>of her three emails to Lerma do not indicate that she even hinted at what she
>>was about to post to Usenet.
>
>Ah. So you know the "truth" about Mr Penny's competence, do you?
>
>Do please enlighten us.

I'll enlighten you to this:

I am not pretending to be a reporter, and in that role attacking a human's
reputation based solely on "anonymous sources."

I do not claim to have any inside track on Mr. Penny's competence, or any
other matter attending to Shelley's report. However, I guaranteed you that if
a similar report had my name on it, there would be a great deal more research
done before it ever saw publication -- if, after research, I still felt there
was a story there.

It's your choice, and Shelley's, to savage Lerma's reputation with no more to
go on than "anonymous sources." That is what is in sore need of support. I
need prove nothing, as I am not seeking to destroy anyone.

>If Shelley's report is inaccurate, why has no one actually refuted it point by
>point? All I have seen so far is bluster, complaints and accusations from Arnie
>and a few amazingly uncritical supporters.

Lerma has denied that it has any basis in fact. And, while I am also
interested in seeing a fuller explication from him, I am also mindful that:

1. The lynchmob mentality engendered by this report is shameful. It merits
absolutely *no* response at all, and if you get one, it is entirely through
Arnaldo's largesse.

2. He is up to here in legal chaos at the moment, and doesn't exactly need
the extra burden of giving you and the Co$ the satisfaction of seeing him do
a legal striptease here in the newsgroup.

3. Probably the wise thing for Lerma to do is wait for people like you to
blow off the excess bloodlust that reports like this inspire before making
any attempt to be heard.

4. *You* didn't put your ass in a legal sling over the Co$'s criminal
conspiracy. FACTnet did -- it's their case, not yours.

5. The next person who claims they are owed an explanation because FACTnet
solicits donations should also post how much money they actually donated.

>As i said in an earlier post: why do we get cries of "it's a hatchet job! anyone
>who dares to ask questions is an enemy" instead of "let's have more information
>so we can get a better idea as to what is really going on"?

Watch your use of quotes. The words within them have appeared nowhere but in
your posts. But then, you consider Shelley's work to be journalism, so what
should I expect?

This was NOT asking questions. This was a quick glossing-over of AL's
explanation of why Bob was voted out of the board, and *bald-faced
conjecture* over what "the truth" might be --with absolutely no credible
evidence put forward except "anonymous sources." It was done in the name of
*journalism*. Go to your local library -- or even search the damn web -- and
research this phrase: "journalistic standards."

This article was an invitation to a lynching, and you seem to be one of the
few ready to haul out the rope.

>What is required now is simple:
>
>1. A reasoned rebuttal. Show us exactly where the article is inaccurate.

Its fault is less inaccuracy than it is the fact that its accusations have no
credible basis. If you seek to assassinate my character -- accuse me of
child-rape or wife-beating because an "anonymous source" told you it was so,
how much of a fool would I be to attempt to answer such claims, and thus
dignify them? All you get from this is "no I didn't" -"yes you did." Proving
nothing.

I'm sure that would make Co$ happy, and probably the poison pen who is
Shelley's "source." But who else? People will believe what they will believe.

>2. A simple statement that FACTNet will not turn on Bob Penny. If FACTNet does
> not intend to act dishonourably it will cost ~absolutely nothing~ to say so.

Lerma said this already, several days ago, quoted in several other messages
in this thread:

"complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.

you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.

You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have
no idea shelly."

You obviously don't wish to believe him, preferring instead to take the
"anonymous source" at his word.. Why? Did Shelley reveal her "anonymous
source" to you?

Since AL can't even face his anonymous accuser, what do you expect him to do
beyond this denial?

And why would AL bother going to IRC to report the removal of Penny from
FACTnet's board if he plans to blow his net reputation by suing him anyway?

>Indeed, what we've got to date is a diatribe on a.r.s. that answers no questions
>and accuses Shelley of being an OSA stooge (unwitting or otherwise), and an
>episode on IRC in which Arnie said "fuck you" in response to a polite suggestion
>that "a statement signed by you and LW to the effect that you were letting Penny
>out of the suit & would pay his legal expense would go far to quiet doubts".

If the questioner displayed your "Usenet People's Court" attitude, "fuck you"
seems not entirely out of line as a response. It is Arnie and his
codefendants with their asses directly on the line, *not you.* You are owed
*nothing,* except perhaps a better job of reporting from self-appointed
net.jounalists.

Were you on IRC when this exchange took place? Or did you get this from a
transcript? Or was it from Shelley's report? If the latter, then the first
two questions apply to her. If a transcript, what was its source? If it was
someone's memory, then whose?

Whatever the case, I expect that Arnie felt the questioner was being rather
proprietary about a matter that is ultimately on Arnie's shoulders. I've seen
enough of Arnie's posts to know that he'll tell somebody to butt out when he
feels they're being invasive. Are you saying he has no right to do that? Are
you saying that Usenet should be dictating to Arnie what he "owes" them?

What does Arnie owe you when you've demonstrated your willingness to believe
an anonymous report over what Arnie has said in this ng? What reason do you
have to take an anonymous report in good faith? Why should Arnie act
placatory to the mob out to lynch him? That is not his style.

>>Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
>>physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
>>matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
>>Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.
>
>Let's not forget that the **BJ** article is not all about the state of Penny's
>health. The personality conflicts that resulted in the resignation or dismissal
>of the other board members; the disagreement over case strategy that had
>Wollersheim and Lerma on one side and Penny and Faegre & Benson on the other;
>the matter of the FACTNet CDs; the Coregis funds; the ~very~ short interval
>between F&B's resignation from the case and Penny's dismissal -- these are all
>germane and suggest that Penny's removal from the board was not prompted only by
>his condition.

And what is this supposed to accomplish? I mean, besides giving you the
impression that you had a part in this drama, compromising FACTnet's case,
and giving Co$'s ARS monitors a good giggle?

>I have no knowledge of the effects of multiple sclerosis and I will leave
>readers to peruse the other threads where it is being discussed.
>
>Now, ~I~ don't know how accurate the **BJ** report is. If you (Robert), or
>Arnie, or anyone has ~facts~ with which to correct any inaccuracies,

Here's a fact: "anonymous sources" do not provide a basis for savaging a
man's character, particularly when he is going through litigation hell.

*That* is a fact.

>please post
>them or email to Shelley Thomson. Shelley has indicated that she will be pleased
>to publish any such corrections in the next issue of **BJ**.

I would love to see the above fact incorporated.

>To FACTNet: Here's your chance to get things straight. Hadn't you better get
>cracking?

The world owes you a whole lot, eh?

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Sister Clara]

In article <3221434c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

> William Barwell, God's gift to NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800, brightened
> alt.religion.scientology with the words:

> > Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
> >alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
> >should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
> >double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
> >
> >If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
> >journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
> >things.
> >
>
> You must be speaking ex cathedra today, pope, because this is just what I was
> about to post.
>
> Further, I don't see what possible harm could have come from sending the
> full text of this report to all concerned parties in advance. The
> considerations in print publication that make such practice unwise
> (advertising, prior retraint, etcetera) don't really apply here, imo, for a
> variety of reasons. One of them being that this is strictly amateur
> reporting, that shows even less reponsibility than most newspaper work.

And you are an "amateur" critic. So what?

>
> For instance, a key point brought up is a question of Bob Penney's
> competency. There is no indication that Shelley attempted to learn the truth
> of the matter; she leaves as subject to discussion & speculation on Usenet --
> that doesn't seem much of a favor to Penney. How much effort would it have
> taken to clear this up? And, if Shelley had determined that Penney is,
> indeed, appreciably impaired, how much of this story remains "newsworthy?"

You don't think the possibility that Bob could be sued by his co-defendants
is "newsworthy"? Or that he could end up taking "all of the blame" in the
case? How about the fact that Bob was removed from the FACTNet board on
August 12th? Is that newsworthy enough for you?

>
> Lerma's reaction to the story has not been very forthcoming. But I'd feel
> pretty daunted myself, if I were being forced to discuss the intimate matters
> of a friend or associate with all of Usenet, as if everyone participating in
> ARS were not-so-silent partners in the lawsuit.

That is almost as good an excuse as Fishman's "I cannot possibly be expected
to discuss the inconsistencies in Lonesome Squirrel because my lawyers will
not let me." I guess removing Bob from the board was a "friendly act"?

Arnie is willing enough to post documents relating to the lawsuits to Usenet
when it suits him.

>
> Yes, FACTnet accepts donations, and therefore should be accountable -- *to
> donors.* Beyond that, what Arnold Lerma chooses to share with the
> world-at-large is a measure of his public-spiritedness. Private and public
> issues can intertwine quite easily in a case like this. No one owes complete
> revelation of their private life, or that of others, to anyone who asks in
> the name of "accountability."

How about an obligation to those from whom he solicits funds for FACTnet via
posts to this newsgroup? Don't you think that the fact that the board of
FACTnet has changed is a relevant piece of information for those who might
be tempted to contribute?

Why is it that Bob was removed from the FACTNet board on August 12th and yet
nothing was revealed to this newsgroup about this very important change in
the nature of the organisation until Biased Journalism came out a full 10
days later?

And STILL there is a deafening silence from those who are official
representatives of FACTNet.

This newsgroup has always been a primary forum for FACTNet to solicit funds.
I think it is only fair that this newsgroup should also be told about
essential changes in its structure and any change in policy that it may be
intending to implement.

Is it really too much to ask for a definitive statement on these matters?

>
> Shelley's account of her three emails to Lerma offer no indication of what
> material she was about to report. One has to wonder what informs her concept
> of journalistic practice.

I think "seeking after the truth" would probably cover it. I still wait for
any evidence whatsoever to disturb the coherence of her story.

[Hillel]

In article <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Robert Martin <fli...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>5. The next person who claims they are owed an explanation because FACTNet

>solicits donations should also post how much money they actually donated.

\begin{sarcasm}
The next person who claims they are owed an explanation what the "Church"
of $cientology does with the "donations" should also post how much money
they actually donated.
\end{sarcasm}

>And what is this supposed to accomplish? I mean, besides giving you the
>impression that you had a part in this drama, compromising FACTnet's case,
>and giving Co$'s ARS monitors a good giggle?

The job of a good journalist is to tell the truth, even if it makes the
Co$ happy. Ignoring reality is not the best way to improve reality.

[Robert Martin]

Sister Clara, God's gift to None, brightened alt.religion.scientology with
the words:

>And you are an "amateur" critic. So what?

I've made my living as a writer for twenty years. Mostly magazine writing
and editing, but I did work for the Jersey Journal for a year.

>> For instance, a key point brought up is a question of Bob Penney's
>> competency. There is no indication that Shelley attempted to learn the truth
>> of the matter; she leaves as subject to discussion & speculation on Usenet --
>> that doesn't seem much of a favor to Penney. How much effort would it have
>> taken to clear this up? And, if Shelley had determined that Penney is,
>> indeed, appreciably impaired, how much of this story remains "newsworthy?"
>
>You don't think the possibility that Bob could be sued by his co-defendants
>is "newsworthy"?

Not if there is no basis for reporting such a story. Anonymous sources are
*not* considered sufficient for a story that impugns character. And Lerma
suing Penny would demolish his reputation on the net, as you must surely
realize.

>Or that he could end up taking "all of the blame" in the
>case?

Where, again, is the basis for this?

>How about the fact that Bob was removed from the FACTNet board on
>August 12th? Is that newsworthy enough for you?

That much is newsworthy, and it came directly from Arnie Lerma to the net via
IRC on the 13th.

>>
>> Lerma's reaction to the story has not been very forthcoming. But I'd feel
>> pretty daunted myself, if I were being forced to discuss the intimate matters
>> of a friend or associate with all of Usenet, as if everyone participating in
>> ARS were not-so-silent partners in the lawsuit.
>
>That is almost as good an excuse as Fishman's "I cannot possibly be expected
>to discuss the inconsistencies in Lonesome Squirrel because my lawyers will
>not let me." I guess removing Bob from the board was a "friendly act"?

There were incinsistencies to be explained. Lerma's reasons for Penny's
removal were explained partially in the report, and further explained in his
prompt response to the story. The other stuff is crap -- Lerma cannot prove a
negative.

>
>Arnie is willing enough to post documents relating to the lawsuits to Usenet
>when it suits him.

Oh, and now he should be compelled to do so when it suits us? Is he obligated
to disprove every accusation that might be leveled at him by anonymous
sources, or only those channeled by Shelley?

What does AL convincing you that he won't sue Bob Penny do if he has no such
intention anyway? How does it help his case, or simplify his burdensome legal
tasks?

I'd like to know more myself, but I don't think he should feel compelled to
respond to irresponsible reporting -- that only encourages more of the same.

Shelley knew her report was less than complete -- that's why the story ends
with an appeal for more info, and a promise of corrections. In real
journalism, you don't publish a story so obviously under-researched..

>> Yes, FACTnet accepts donations, and therefore should be accountable -- *to
>> donors.* Beyond that, what Arnold Lerma chooses to share with the
>> world-at-large is a measure of his public-spiritedness. Private and public
>> issues can intertwine quite easily in a case like this. No one owes complete
>> revelation of their private life, or that of others, to anyone who asks in
>> the name of "accountability."
>
>How about an obligation to those from whom he solicits funds for FACTnet via
>posts to this newsgroup?

The mere act of solicitation doesn't create indebtedness; if it did, America
OnLine would owe me a bundle. OTOH, if you actually wrote him out a check,
that's another matter.

>Don't you think that the fact that the board of
>FACTnet has changed is a relevant piece of information for those who might
>be tempted to contribute?

I have no problem with that part of her report, and never said I did.

>Why is it that Bob was removed from the FACTNet board on August 12th and yet
>nothing was revealed to this newsgroup about this very important change in
>the nature of the organisation until Biased Journalism came out a full 10
>days later?

Lerma told people about it in an IRC session less than 24 hours after the
fact, so he wasn't exactly hiding the info.

>And STILL there is a deafening silence from those who are official
>representatives of FACTNet.

You didn't read Lerma's denial? Or you just prefer the reliability of
anonymous sources?

>This newsgroup has always been a primary forum for FACTNet to solicit funds.

I've seen him solicit. That doesn't mean that anybody stretched their pockets
for digging.

>I think it is only fair that this newsgroup should also be told about
>essential changes in its structure and any change in policy that it may be
>intending to implement.
>
>
>Is it really too much to ask for a definitive statement on these matters?

No it's not. I have indicated that I'd like to see a fuller explication of
board changes and the reasons for same.

That doesn't excuse the way that Shelley went about reporting this.

>> Shelley's account of her three emails to Lerma offer no indication of what
>> material she was about to report. One has to wonder what informs her concept
>> of journalistic practice.
>
>I think "seeking after the truth" would probably cover it.

Truth? I have asked several times now:

What is the basis of the report that FACTnet was likely to sue Bob Penny?

If the answer is"anonymous sources" -- and I see no other answer possible --
how can you claim a passion for truth when you refuse to recognize that AL
offered an explanation for Bob Penny's removal (which Shelley reports, and
then suggests is a lie); and that he has since termed the story "rubbish" and
stated that FACTnet "will always stand behind Bob Penny?"

We know something about Arnaldo Lerma. I know of no reason to consider him a
liar. I do know that he has cried long and loud of being "raped" by the CoS
in the raid of his home. My instincts say he is sincere and means to fight
this. He can be brusque, and he is no PR specialist -- but neither is he
obligated to be one. He's got enough on his plate.

We know nothing of his accuser, except that Shelley trusts the accuser enough
to repeat the info he has supplied.

Do you contend that it is easier to believe this great evil of Lerma than it
is to consider that his anonymous accuser may have an agenda? Why would this
person snipe from the shadows? What is in AL's record that makes you think
he's a liar and a betrayer based on the words of a faceless source?

What kind of regard for "truth" is it that you are displaying here?
What sort of critical thinking is at work?

A truly guilty party would have no problem coming up with a smooth story to
fit the events and allay your suspicions. In fact, the story would already be
prepared. Arnie isn't motivated to serve your thirst for truth because he
already knows the truth, and serving you is not going to get him through his
legal problems.

>I still wait for
>any evidence whatsoever to disturb the coherence of her story.

If someone makes character-assassinating charges, the burden of proof lays
with the accuser. Arnaldo has no reason to prove imself innocent of charges
that have no grounds whatsoever.

AL was himself the source for the one solid part of the story, about Penny's
removal from the board. He reported this promptly, on the Internet via IRC.
He offered a explanation, but he did not answer some questions that could
reasonably e deemed insulting.

A FACTnet vs Penny lawsuit would be a complete discreditation of anything
FACTnet might stand for. To indicate that such an event is likely to happen
on the basis of an "anonymous source" is against basic journalistic standards
as practiced at any newspaper worth its salt, or as taught at any university.

You simply do not impugn anyone's' character based on "anonymous reports." I
am speaking here about the "FACTnet to sue Penny" portion of the report, not
about Penny's removal.

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Rod Keller]

Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
: rke...@voicenet.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
: >I'm not surprised, and I doubt this hatchet job will become accepted

: >truth. As has been pointed out, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily
: >my friend. You guys are proving that all over again. Let them eat static,
: >Arnie. This assumption that you owe somebody a formal statement is
: >bullshit.
:
: The assumption that a.r.s. readers owe Factnet any financial support
: might also constitute bullshit according to your thinking, Rod.
:
: Arnie Lerma had enough time to post any number of posts soliciting
: contributions to Factnet in the past couple of weeks. Surely, if he
: wishes people to contribute money to the organization, he can find the
: time to provide an explanation for his and Larry Wollersheim's recent
: actions.
:
: Without that explanation, it's absurd to believe that financial
: support to Factnet will continue.

Nobody said you owe Factnet anything. You've made it plain that we're not
all friends here, and it's certainly not a business decision to send money
to Factnet. So I guess it's based on your evaluation of how it promotes
the common goal. Does support of Factnet help achieve the common goal?

To answer that, I think you have to judge for yourself the character of
the people who run Factnet. I've never met Larry. I hear he's pretty much
an asshole, pisses off his own friends, etc. But Arnie has posted that
Larry can't make monetary decisions without his OK. And I know the
character of Arnie Lerma. I trust his statement and I'm pleased to see he
fired the weasels that have been representing him until now. Does anybody
have any doubts about the character of Arnie Lerma? That's what this all
comes down to, and if you're going to impugn his honesty, then I think you
should do it openly, not with this "we're just asking questions" facade.

I'm making out my check tonight. You have to act according to your own
conscience.

--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / Elron's Inspector / Merchant of Chaos
Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin):

>>To FACTNet: Here's your chance to get things straight. Hadn't you better get
>>cracking?
>
>The world owes you a whole lot, eh?

Robert, your critique is well-reasoned and clearly intended for the
benifit of objectivity.

However, Sis has done a bunch of stuff for this newsgroup and may
have even supported Factnet in her own way or financially. She
probably does have a right to question and demand some answers about
certain things she may have been supporting.

That's what we're trying to get clearbaby to do, isn't it? It don't
apply to 'us' too? Please give it some thought.

Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin):

>The mere act of solicitation doesn't create indebtedness;

The indebtedness is built into the moral position soliciting on this
newsgroup brings with it. You have not been here long enough to get
the 'feel' of it, Robert.

Being able to demand straight answers from each other is part of the
bargain we make in order to post here. And having to answer up is
another. It just goes with the turf.

>if it did, America OnLine would owe me a bundle.

This ain't Kansas, either.

>OTOH, if you actually wrote him out a check,
>that's another matter.

No. No matter at all. The money ain't the thing at all. I haven't
contributed anything to Factnet but my limited support. [ASIDE: One
guy, Tanai, contributed $3000 to Factnet so it could be forwarded to
MoFo. I have never known if Factnet forwarded the money to it's
proper destination.] But if I did want to know something, I would
feel justified to demand answers from Arnie or Larry. Not that I am
curious about anything they may be up to.

I'm fairly certain that neither of them would back-stab Bob. That'd
be seriously counter-productive for them.

[William Barwell]

In article <3220712d...@snews.zippo.com>,
Marina Chong <mar...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>On 25 Aug 1996 08:18:59 -0500 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
>wrote in article <4vpjs3$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>
>>No fact checking? It is not journalism, it is just rumor mongering.
>>Time to change this E-journal's name if one is not going to practice
>>journalism.

>>
>>If BJ continues on in this manner, I will kill file it.
>>'Facts', rumors, claims and opinions must be double checked as per basic
>>journalistic practices.
>

>On what basis do you assume that no fact-checking was done?

>
>Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
>the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
>on her part to get his side of the story.
>

>Did you check the facts before you posted your article?
>
Alerma states that many facts are wrong, I have no reason to doubt him.
Do remember, he is involved in several COURT CASES. He is not SUPPOSED
to talk about these things. Though he may scream if somebody prints stuff
that is wrong. Statements of the sort that MAY be wrong, should be
handled carefully and stated as allegations, not facts.
Especially if the sources are un-named and the person these stories
purport to be about are involved in a court case that precludes
them talking freely as per standard procedure in such court cases.

Shelly would do well to be more careful of these supposed sources in the
future as they seem to be not exactly trustworthy, judging by Alerma's
response.

The world is full of ill informed busybodies willing to prattle about
things they really do not know much about, and Shelly should keep that in
mind when people like Arnie have their hands tied behind their backs
being involved in court cases and negotiations that make it hard for them
to speak openly. Often, news media sit on stories when there is no real
need to print stuff that is weak and where the principles are reluctant to
speak because of their legal situation, and these stories serve no real
purpose.

She should stop prying like this. If all she has is anonymous sources
that seem to have not quite gotten it right. People can get hurt by stuff
like this.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!

[William Barwell]

In article <322077c7...@snews.zippo.com>,
Marina Chong <mar...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>On 25 Aug 1996 08:12:07 -0500 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
>wrote in article <4vpjf7$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:

>
>>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,
>>Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>

>[snip]

>
>>>
>>>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>>
>>>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>>>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>>>the ones contained in your article.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>>alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>>should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>>double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>>

>You are making the unwarranted assumption that Shelley Thomson did not "get two
>confirmations of alleged facts before publishing". On what basis do you do this?
>
>Please read Shelley's response to Arnie Lerma,
>Message ID: <sthomsonD...@netcom.com>,
>for clarification.

>
>>If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>>journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>>things.
>

>Shelley tried. Three times. Arnie refused. Three times.
>
>>Journalism 101.
>
>How patronizing.

Sorry, one more time, Arnie is involved in several court cases and
negotiations. He is not SUPPOSED to talk aboutthese things.
That is the first thing you lawyer will tell you in cases like this. Do
not discuss this out of court. There ar every good reasons for doing
things this way.

Shelley should have known this and known why Arnie refused to
get involved with discussing his legal doings with a reporter.
I will fault Arnie for not letting her know exactly why, pro forma he did
not wish to respond, though she should have been able to have known this
from the fact it is standard legal form not to discuss particulars of
legal cases and negotiations with reporters.

[Arnaldo Lerma]

nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:

> In article <d450...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk "Sister
> Clara" writes:
>
> > > stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
> > >
> > > >"By the way, this week I visited with Margery Wakefield and Bob Penny
> > > >in Colorado, putting the final touches on my motion to permanently
> > > >unseal the upper level materials, and working with F.A.C.T.net
> > > >officials. Bob Penny, as many of you know, is one of the Founding
> > > >Board of Directors of F.A.C.T.net, and Margery Wakefield is the author
> > > >of the Road to Xenu. We had a great time out there in the Denver
> > > >rockies and got a lot accomplished."
> >
> > Oh shit. Fishman is involved.......
>
>Im their efforts to get at Wollersheim and make their plans for
>Total World Domination to "go right", the OSA kidnapped Steven Fishman
>and now Arnie Lerma, replacing them with look-alikes...
>
>Deep Clam
>
>
considering some of the stuff I've had to listen to your theory
doesnt sound so far fetched...

Arnie Lerma

[Arnaldo Lerma]

lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) wrote:

>In article <4vpjf7$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:

>>In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,
>>Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>

>>>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:34:38 GMT, ale...@dgs.dgsys.com
>>>(Arnaldo Lerma) wrote:
>>>
>>>> stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
>>>> > the shortcomings of the professional news media.
>>>[snip]

>>>> Strange shelly, who is giving you this stuff?
>>>>
>>>> this is vicious...

>>>[big snip]
>>>
>>>Shelley,

>>>
>>>Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>>>
>>>IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>>>a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>>>the ones contained in your article.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>>alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>>should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>>double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>>

>>If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>>journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>>things.
>>

>>Journalism 101.

>
>By my reading, Shelley *did* have two independent sources, and *did* ask
>Arnie for comment--three times--on top of that.

>--
>Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
>Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
>PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04

the article was a crock...

If I am guilty of anything it is not destroying attorney client
privlege in order to slake the paranoid lust of a journalist wannabe.

arnie lerma
when was the last time a mad dog cult searched your home?
watch them search mine http://www2.dgsys.com/~alerma

[Arnaldo Lerma]

>
>Sounds like those things were done, Pope. Sounds to me like Shelley
>got herself a juicy story, tried to do the decent thing by Arnie who
>"no commented" his way through the whole piece.

never had a 'piece to review' - shelly why dont you post what you
sent me to review?

>In the circumstances, I think she did all she could: I suppose she
>could have done what British news media tend to do, viz "We contacted
>the Acme Pollution Company for a response to this story, but they
>declined to be interviewed.", which would have covered her ass a bit
>more pre-emptively, but hey! she's a baby journalist, with stuph to
>learn.
>
>

And mine, FACTNets' and the victims of $cientology's expense no
doubt.

[Arnaldo Lerma]

mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong) wrote:

>On 25 Aug 1996 08:18:59 -0500 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
>wrote in article <4vpjs3$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>
>>No fact checking? It is not journalism, it is just rumor mongering.
>>Time to change this E-journal's name if one is not going to practice
>>journalism.
>>
>>If BJ continues on in this manner, I will kill file it.
>>'Facts', rumors, claims and opinions must be double checked as per basic
>>journalistic practices.
>
>On what basis do you assume that no fact-checking was done?
>
>Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
>the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
>on her part to get his side of the story.
>

Shelly said nothing about the details, I was supposed to divine
what her claims were, and then know I should correct them...
I was busy, and disinclined to deal with shelly at all. In hindsight I
was right.

>Did you check the facts before you posted your article?

nope, never did, just fell for sensationalism...

>
>M

>
>
>--
>Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, Joker/Degrader
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
>barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
>Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
>World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
>Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Join the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT!
>mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@super.zippo.com

[Arnaldo Lerma]

fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

>Marina Chong, God's gift to The Knights of Xenu, brightened
>alt.religion.scientology with the words:
>
>[snip]

>
>>Shelley has informed us in her response to Arnie Lerma [Message-ID:
>><sthomsonD...@netcom.com>], and also on IRC, that she did indeed confirm
>>the story with more than one source, and that Arnie Lerma refused three attempts
>>on her part to get his side of the story.
>

>Some sources. She was apparently unable to determine the truth about Mr.
>Penney's competence, which is a major lynchpin in the story. And her account
>of her three emails to Lerma do not indicate that she even hinted at what she
>was about to post to Usenet.

Exactly. ....

>Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
>physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
>matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
>Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.
>

>Penney's condition is known to people on ars; it would have been a relatively

>simple matter for Shelley to ask around and find out. If she failed to do so,
>that's lazy amateur reporting. If she did so and left the information because
>it failed to support her premise, that's fraudulent reporting.
>
>
>
>

> Xenu Barata Nicto

[Arnaldo Lerma]

inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:

>d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dean Benjamin):
>
>>Shelley Thompson (in **Biased Journalism** V2no16, August 22, 1996):
>>> On the following day, August 13, Arnie Lerma joined an irc session
>>> on #scientology and imparted the news that Bob Penny had been
>>> removed from the FACTNet board because his loss of mental capability
>>> due to his illness [multiple sclerosis] placed FACTNet in jeopardy.
>>> Fellow directors can be held liable for his actions, if he has any
>>> impairment that would interfere with his duties, Lerma said. We
>>> sorta had no choice.
>>
>>Sister Clara:
>>> What "loss of mental capability" was due to MS? I am very
>>> interested in hearing what effect having MS is supposed to have on
>>> Bob Penny's mental capabilities.
>>
>>
>>Last September 1995, in email, Bob Penny described his MS symptoms as
>>follows:
>>
>> The symptoms [of MS] can be (and often are) muscular control, but
>> they can also be cognitive. I wobble when I walk, but that is
>> much less disturbing to me than the problems with concentration,
>> focus, and attention span. I often cannot remember what I was
>> doing or thinking about just a few moments ago.
>>
>>Since MS is a progressive disease, his symptoms are probably worse
>>these days.
>
> I talked to him about a week ago. He is fading fast. Apparently he
>is only really coherent for a few hours in the morning.
>
> It's sad.

>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>

Thanks dennis,

Its way sad, and I cannot describe the kind of emotion i feel,
the knot in the pit of stomach, when I think anyone who has read lerma
over the last 2 years+ might entertain the wilder speculations I've
read recently...

[Arnaldo Lerma]

Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4vnqqp$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>

> marg...@aol.com (Margelis) wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

>> From: stho...@netcom.com (shelley thomson)
>> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:03:29 GMT
>> Message-ID: <sthomsonD...@netcom.com>
>>
>> Shelley:
>> > When I was researching this article I made three attempts to
>> >talk with you. The first time, shortly after Penny had been removed
>> >from the board, you said there was no news. The second time, you
>> >said there was lots of news but you refused to discuss it with me.
>> >I wrote once more, suggesting that you had done something that you
>> >should perhaps think twice about. You replied that you had no
>> >idea what I meant.

I'm supposed to read your mind?

>> > You stonewalled me. That is why you did not have input >in
>> >the article.

You attitude in general has left me less than enthusiastic.
You have seized every moment to complain why I dont give you 'an
exclusive' or something like that. And I stopped sending you info
'cause you took too long getting it to the net. We discussed this.

>> From the way it looks, arnie has been extremely busy writing court briefs,
>> firing lawyers, etc, and may not have
>> felt he had time or energy to deal with PR at the moment.
>
>"From the way it looks"? Either you know or you don't. Stop trying to muddy
>the waters (forlorn hope).

Oh my. well it certyainly looks that way to me, any time I spend
dancing with this bull is a few more letters I cannot write.. to
people who have already donated to FACTNet in the past....

>Either it is important to set the record straight for the thousands of ars
>readers (many of whom may donate or plan to donate to FACTNet) or it isn't.
>That is assuming that the record is not straight to begin with.

>
>How Arnie chooses to spend his time and decide his priorities is up to him.
>But stories that remain unchallenged on Usenet become accepted as truth the
>longer they remain that way. Arnie found the time to splutter at all of us
>as an initial reaction to BJ. I am surprised he has not found the time to
>issue a formal statement (including the requested reassurances) backed up by
>facts.

Some actions I am unwilling to dignify with a response.
Thats way I am.

>>
>> It's hard for me to imagine, however, that if you had informed him of the
>> charges you were making in your article,

She never said squat about that nore can she produce any email about
that.

such as the speculation that
>> FACTNET was going to sue Bob Penny, he would have refused to set the
>> record straight. Did you so inform him?
>
Nope, just hey wanna talk, and I said sorry dont have time
(paraphrased all you detail nitpickers save yer time)

>How can you inform someone who is not prepared to listen? Oh, sorry
>Margaret, I forgot I was talking to *you*.
>
>>
>> If not, why not? Is it common journalistic practice (I'm asking--I don't
>> know) to make such serious allegations without *informing* the potentially
>> injured parties and allowing them to rebut them *before* publication?
>
>Can't you read. She tried, goddammit. Maybe Arnie could have made an
>appointment to talk to her sometime in December. Should we have had to wait
>until then?
>
>sheesh.
>
>>
>> Also, did you make any attempt to speak with Wollersheim?
>> If not, why not?
>
>Apparently he is "on the road" and "out of communication" until about
>Thursday. Rather careless of him, in the circumstances, to choose this time
>to be incommunicado, but there you go.

This little 'flap' is a dust mote compared to the other situations
we are dealing with.

>Funny thing about Wollersheim. He has seemingly never bothered to register
>any kind of permanent Net presence as an individual but remains one of those
>shadowy characters who relies on others to convey his point of view.

Just what are you tryin to say here? Just because he doesnt allow
ARS to waste his time, seems most prudent, and anything but shadowy...
and paying and maintaining the FACTnet files on the net was one hell
of a net presence compared to your complaints that we are unable to
package up everything in tidy little gift wrapped parcels to suit your
preference.

>At least one can normally know where to find Arnie, even if he chooses not
>to respond.

Well the cult would like to know where he is too.

[Arnaldo Lerma]

dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:

>I agree. Shelley, good job, sorry for the flame wars. Carry on, tally ho

>and we'll get any corrections noted.
>
>_Deirdre
>

>In article <4vqa4p$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, lip...@primenet.com

>(James J. Lippard) wrote:
>
>> By my reading, Shelley *did* have two independent sources, and *did*
>> ask Arnie for comment--three times--on top of that.

Shelly post what you sent me to 'review'.. go ahead, post it,
post all 'three'.

>http://www.sover.net/~deirdre

[Arnaldo Lerma]

Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>There are times when the sheer hypocrisy and double-standards I see in this
>newsgroup really get through to me.

uhuh

>Now all join in....
>
>"FACTNet good, Co$ bad, FACTNet good, Co$ bad...."
>
>(with apologies to George Orwell - "Animal Farm").

no need to chant, thats some other newsgroup...
This one is about exposing the nature of the mad dog cult of
$cientology...

[Sister Clara]

In article <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

> Marina Chong, God's gift to The Knights of Xenu, brightened
> alt.religion.scientology with the words:

> >If Shelley's report is inaccurate, why has no one actually refuted it point by

> >point? All I have seen so far is bluster, complaints and accusations from Arnie
> >and a few amazingly uncritical supporters.
>
> Lerma has denied that it has any basis in fact. And, while I am also
> interested in seeing a fuller explication from him, I am also mindful that:

I see. It has no basis in fact. Bob did not get removed from FACTnet's board
then. Well, we can all rest easy now.

>
> 1. The lynchmob mentality engendered by this report is shameful. It merits
> absolutely *no* response at all, and if you get one, it is entirely through
> Arnaldo's largesse.

I agree about the lynchmob. The odd thing is that the only lynchmob I have
seen has been heading towards Shelley. All Marina and I have sought is a
clear, fact-based rebuttal to the claims made in BJ. We have not yet seen
one (and it is now 5 days since publication). The accuracy or otherwise of
BJ's reporting will be borne out either by a clear statement (which I
continue to ask for) or by events.

You see, unlike you and some others, I have NOT made up my mind. I would
like nothing better than to see evidence to prove Shelley wrong. I would
like very much to believe that those who oppose and fight the cult are all
people who are basically representing the "forces of light". It is a matter
of opinion whether or not one believes in the integrity of the anonymous
sources that Shelley claims gave her the information. The fact is that, by
the very nature of things, we do not know how trustworthy such sources are
if we do not know who they are.

But I DO know who Shelley is and I do know the seriousness with which she
imbues BJ. She would not have written such a story (and she knew what the
likely response was going to be) if she were not confident in her own mind
that there was some essential factual basis for it.

Now anyone who has been around this newsgroup and irc for any length of time
will tell you that I have been highly critical of her stances in the past on
particular issues but that I also accord her begrudging respect for the way
she goes about her task. You will have to find out and judge for yourself
but the single most important commodity in this argument is the truth. I
want to know what it is.

If the cult are accused of particular behaviours, then silence from them on
whatever the charges might be is deemed a victory. Arnie knows this - he has
been around here far longer than I have. I am frankly very surprised that he
has not seen fit to bestow what you describe as his largesse on us poor wogs
so that we can consign this story to the rubbish bin (if that is where it
belongs). The longer the silence goes on, the more the "no smoke without
fire" argument will gain a foothold here.

>
> 2. He is up to here in legal chaos at the moment, and doesn't exactly need
> the extra burden of giving you and the Co$ the satisfaction of seeing him do
> a legal striptease here in the newsgroup.

I am not asking for a legal striptease, as you call it. The statement I have
asked for simply relates to whether or not Bob Penny will ever be sued by
FACTNet or either of its two directors and whether the blame for the whole
case will be laid to rest on his shoulders. There are other questions which
could be usefully answered of course, arising from the story in BJ, but I
would prefer to leave those to the discretion of Arnie as to whether he
feels it would be wise to make a statement which also covers those.

In the light of the way you frame your point, I feel I have to ask whether
you think there would ever be circumstances when you would accept that suing
Bob Penny would be morally and ethically right? If not, what can be the harm
in dismissing that possibility here and now.

>
> 3. Probably the wise thing for Lerma to do is wait for people like you to
> blow off the excess bloodlust that reports like this inspire before making
> any attempt to be heard.

How many months would you suggest? I leave it to the readers to decide where
the bloodlust lies. but I would imagine that anyone who has ever donated to
FACTnet in the past or had plans to donate to them in the future would like
the response sooner rather than later. Wouldn't you?

>
> 4. *You* didn't put your ass in a legal sling over the Co$'s criminal
> conspiracy. FACTnet did -- it's their case, not yours.

**Yawn** Yes we have seen that argument employed many many times before. It
says more about the person using it than the person it is aimed at. It is so
morally bankrupt it is almost laughable. The fact that FACTnet "put its ass
in a legal sling" does not then give it carte blanche to behave without due
regard to the standards of honesty and decency that we expect from anyone.

To take the argument to a ridiculous extreme (and it is a ridiculous extreme
of course), if either of the FACTNet Two decided to murder someone, would
you employ the same argument against anyone who criticised them then?

I am allowed to care about Bob Penny, goddamit, and I am also allowed to
press for information about his treatment by others. The man is seriously
ill with a disease that also affects a near relative of mine. I have seen
its effects and know what misery it can cause. As a human being, I feel that
I *do* have the right to know whether what are possibly his last days are to
be blighted by those who have hitherto been regarded as friends and
colleagues turning against him.

Don't I have that right? Or should I just close my eyes and mind my own
business as several people clearly want me to do? Well, I am sorry but I
just cannot do that.

Bob Penny has rights too in common with all other MS sufferers who have to
fight continually against a ghastly, debilitating, degenerative disease. I
want to see those rights upheld. A clear statement several days ago which
covered those areas I have outlined would have helped.

But all I hear is silence........

>
> 5. The next person who claims they are owed an explanation because FACTnet

> solicits donations should also post how much money they actually donated.

Don't be so damned juvenile. We continually demand to know details about Co$
financing and most of us have never donated a penny to the cult in our
lives. Your point is supposed to shut us up.

*flunk*

>
> >As i said in an earlier post: why do we get cries of "it's a hatchet job! anyone
> >who dares to ask questions is an enemy" instead of "let's have more information
> >so we can get a better idea as to what is really going on"?
>
> Watch your use of quotes. The words within them have appeared nowhere but in
> your posts. But then, you consider Shelley's work to be journalism, so what
> should I expect?

Cheap shot, but I am getting used to those by now.

>
> This was NOT asking questions. This was a quick glossing-over of AL's
> explanation of why Bob was voted out of the board, and *bald-faced
> conjecture* over what "the truth" might be --with absolutely no credible
> evidence put forward except "anonymous sources." It was done in the name of
> *journalism*. Go to your local library -- or even search the damn web -- and
> research this phrase: "journalistic standards."

Oh, give us a break. "Journalistic standards" are largely a myth.
Journalists make mistakes continually and most columnists and editorials
deal with conjecture based on what is known at that time. Face it. You just
did not like the message.

>
> This article was an invitation to a lynching, and you seem to be one of the
> few ready to haul out the rope.

Sure, sure, Robert, anything you say.....

>
> >What is required now is simple:
> >
> >1. A reasoned rebuttal. Show us exactly where the article is inaccurate.
>
> Its fault is less inaccuracy than it is the fact that its accusations have no
> credible basis. If you seek to assassinate my character -- accuse me of
> child-rape or wife-beating because an "anonymous source" told you it was so,
> how much of a fool would I be to attempt to answer such claims, and thus
> dignify them? All you get from this is "no I didn't" -"yes you did." Proving
> nothing.

....which is why a reasoned rebuttal has been asked for over several days.
If the accusations have no credible basis they should be easy to dismiss. A
statement along the lines proposed would do that. Where is it?

Tell me, Robert, if a newspaper printed a story where it accused you of
having done various things and of having the intention to do other
particular things in the future, and these accusations were false, what
would *you* do? Would you write a hasty note to the editor (or possibly
speak to him on the phone) and simply keep on repeating that the accusations
were "rubbish"?

Or would you rather sit down and calmly write to him giving clear
unequivocal statements which would put the record straight? Perhaps you
would do both (and that might be understandable). But would you do the first
and then leave it at that for several days? Do you think a "no comment"
would be the wisest course?

In this country (UK), when a politician is accused of behaving with less
than the highest standards of decency and integrity, we are used to the
politician then attacking the journalists involved in writing the story, the
newspapers who printed it and the whole state of journalism in general.
Indeed, "journalistic integrity" is the first thing that comes under attack.
And the people who observe this response say "well, that probably means he
has been caught out then."

Maybe that is a cynical response, but that is how people react who have seen
the same pattern of events time and time again. The sensible politician who
knows that the story is an exageration or not true, will issue a statement
at the earliest opportunity which answers the points made in the accusatory
story one at a time. The aim of the politician will be to put the story "to
bed" as quickly as possible.

People are willing to accept that the press gets it wrong sometimes. They
are willing to accept that the press can be malicious. But they are not so
naive as to believe that the press is always wrong or that it cannot tell
truth from fiction.

There is a right and a wrong way to deal with allegations. Silence is the
worst possible response.

> I'm sure that would make Co$ happy, and probably the poison pen who is
> Shelley's "source." But who else? People will believe what they will believe.

I am glad you are sure. One thing that still intrigues me. Why was Bob's
removal from the FACTnet board deemed an appropriate topic for discussion on
irc (it was mentioned on the 13th August, the day after he was removed from
the board) and yet there was not one hint on a.r.s. of the same event until
BJ came out on the 22nd August? At the same time as this interesting piece
of information was not forthcoming to the wider readership, there were a
number of posts talking about all kinds of other aspects of the current
legal case and soliciting further funds.

>
> >2. A simple statement that FACTNet will not turn on Bob Penny. If FACTNet does
> > not intend to act dishonourably it will cost ~absolutely nothing~ to say so.
>
> Lerma said this already, several days ago, quoted in several other messages
> in this thread:
>
> "complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.
> you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.
> You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have
> no idea shelly."

No, I am sorry. This is simply NOT good enough. Let us see what the quote
was actually a response to:

BJ said:
"Bob Penny's ouster did not affect the size of the recovery
from Coregis. Penny was covered for acts and omissions during his
tenure, as Lerma correctly said. Instead it deprived him of any
authority over how the Coregis funds would be spent. "

Arnie's response was as you indicated above:

" complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.
you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.
You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have no idea
shelly."

That remark did little or nothing to answer the points asked for by Marina
in the statement. What is more, you know that. You could read the context as
well as I. Maybe you were hoping that readers would not look back to find
the full context in which the paragraph you quoted was made?

Marina's request is still unanswered.

>
> You obviously don't wish to believe him, preferring instead to take the
> "anonymous source" at his word.. Why? Did Shelley reveal her "anonymous
> source" to you?
>
> Since AL can't even face his anonymous accuser, what do you expect him to do
> beyond this denial?

The denial was to a different point that was made.

>
> And why would AL bother going to IRC to report the removal of Penny from
> FACTnet's board if he plans to blow his net reputation by suing him anyway?

Why did he not bother reporting the same to a.r.s. And before you suggest
that irc is a "safer" place to divulge information of a sensitive kind I
have to say that irc channels are every bit as "open" as newsgroups. Open
conversations may be monitored relatively easily even though there is
apparently no Scientology person on the channel itself.

All the regulars know that and behave with a level of circumspection as a
result.

>
> >Indeed, what we've got to date is a diatribe on a.r.s. that answers no questions
> >and accuses Shelley of being an OSA stooge (unwitting or otherwise), and an
> >episode on IRC in which Arnie said "fuck you" in response to a polite suggestion
> >that "a statement signed by you and LW to the effect that you were letting Penny
> >out of the suit & would pay his legal expense would go far to quiet doubts".
>
> If the questioner displayed your "Usenet People's Court" attitude, "fuck you"
> seems not entirely out of line as a response. It is Arnie and his
> codefendants with their asses directly on the line, *not you.* You are owed
> *nothing,* except perhaps a better job of reporting from self-appointed
> net.jounalists.

OK, as far as you are concerned, none of us here on ars are owed anything on
this matter. I rather suspect you might not be in the majority on this
one.....

>
> Were you on IRC when this exchange took place? Or did you get this from a
> transcript? Or was it from Shelley's report? If the latter, then the first
> two questions apply to her. If a transcript, what was its source? If it was
> someone's memory, then whose?

Marina was indeed on-line when the exchange took place. The dialogue on
channel was logged. The quote from the log was given verbatim.

>
> Whatever the case, I expect that Arnie felt the questioner was being rather
> proprietary about a matter that is ultimately on Arnie's shoulders. I've seen
> enough of Arnie's posts to know that he'll tell somebody to butt out when he
> feels they're being invasive. Are you saying he has no right to do that? Are
> you saying that Usenet should be dictating to Arnie what he "owes" them?

Arnie is experienced enough to know that if he makes a statement such as the
one he gave on channel then he is bound to face questioning on it.

>
> What does Arnie owe you when you've demonstrated your willingness to believe
> an anonymous report over what Arnie has said in this ng? What reason do you
> have to take an anonymous report in good faith? Why should Arnie act
> placatory to the mob out to lynch him? That is not his style.

You are getting repetitive. All those points have been answered above when
you originally made them (and in reposes to other posts).

>
> >>Have any friends who have experienced severe debilitation of their mental or
> >>physical capacities? Some people fond it difficult to regard such things as a
> >>matter for public discourse. I doubt if Lerma was up for chatting about
> >>Penney's conditionn without knowing a good reason for it.
> >

> >Let's not forget that the **BJ** article is not all about the state of Penny's
> >health. The personality conflicts that resulted in the resignation or dismissal
> >of the other board members; the disagreement over case strategy that had
> >Wollersheim and Lerma on one side and Penny and Faegre & Benson on the other;
> >the matter of the FACTNet CDs; the Coregis funds; the ~very~ short interval
> >between F&B's resignation from the case and Penny's dismissal -- these are all
> >germane and suggest that Penny's removal from the board was not prompted only by
> >his condition.
>

> And what is this supposed to accomplish? I mean, besides giving you the
> impression that you had a part in this drama, compromising FACTnet's case,
> and giving Co$'s ARS monitors a good giggle?

Repetition.....is there a three strikes, you're out rule?

>
> >I have no knowledge of the effects of multiple sclerosis and I will leave
> >readers to peruse the other threads where it is being discussed.
> >
> >Now, ~I~ don't know how accurate the **BJ** report is. If you (Robert), or
> >Arnie, or anyone has ~facts~ with which to correct any inaccuracies,
>
> Here's a fact: "anonymous sources" do not provide a basis for savaging a
> man's character, particularly when he is going through litigation hell.
>
> *That* is a fact.

Care to prove it? How do you know how reliable or otherwise the "anonymous
sources" might be? As far as I know, Shelley is the only one who can say how
reliable she believes them to be. And she clearly regards them as very
reliable.

I hope you will not find you have to swallow that "fact" which you show so
much confidence in asserting.

>
> >please post
> >them or email to Shelley Thomson. Shelley has indicated that she will be pleased
> >to publish any such corrections in the next issue of **BJ**.
>
> I would love to see the above fact incorporated.

There you go again, questioning Shelley's integrity. Quite breathtaking
really considering the brief time you seem to have been hanging around this
newsgroup.

>
> >To FACTNet: Here's your chance to get things straight. Hadn't you better get
> >cracking?
>
> The world owes you a whole lot, eh?

No! <grin>

Just FACTnet..........

[TarlaStar]

Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4vpjf7$6...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
> wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:

>> In article <321e842a...@news.teleport.com>,
>> Rich Burroughs <ric...@teleport.com> wrote:

>> >Shelley,
>> >
>> >Did you check your facts with Lerma or Wollersheim?
>> >
>> >IMHO it is only fair to speak with both sides and afford all parties
>> >a chance to comment before publishing serious allegations like
>> >the ones contained in your article.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Is it not standard journalistic practice to get two confirmations of
>> alledged facts before publishing? If one is going to play journalist, one
>> should do it correctly. If the 'facts' get mangled because nothing is
>> double checked before going to 'press', that isn't a good way to go.
>>
>> If one is going to print claims about somebody, it is considered good
>> journalistic practice to call that somebody up and get their side of
>> things.

>...as Shelley has said she tried to do and was stonewalled.

>You can criticise Shelley as much as you all like but the central
>allegations remain and are thus far unanswered. As I have said in other
>posts, I do not know whether the story is accurate or not. But, as I have
>seen no definitive statement that contradicts her assertions (either from
>Arnie himself or from anyone who might know facts that directly contradict
>her account), I have to wonder whether her speculations are a little too
>accurate for comfort for some people.

>I do not understand how Shelley can be accused of gutter journalism when
>those condemning her have no more idea of the truth of the matter than I
>have. If you have facts to contradict the essential story, then post them.

>Accusing a person of bad journalism with no evidence is simply bluster.
>Hell, if the kinds of allegations that Shelley is making about FACTNet had
>been made instead about Co$ you would have all been falling over yourselves
>praising her and joining in the condemnation of such an unpleasant
>organisation.

>There are times when the sheer hypocrisy and double-standards I see in this
>newsgroup really get through to me.

>Now all join in....

>"FACTNet good, Co$ bad, FACTNet good, Co$ bad...."

>(with apologies to George Orwell - "Animal Farm").

<snip>

I would add that Shelley's accounts of the trials and other occurances
have not been questioned. If she's accurate in every other area, what
makes people think that she would suddenly become sloppy and
unattentive in this one? If people have facts to counter hers, I
suggest they present them. Otherwise, I accept that she did her best
to present the facts as she saw/sees them.

Tarla
she called the bluff
now show the hand

[STella]

In article <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Robert Martin <fli...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Here's a fact: "anonymous sources" do not provide a basis for savaging a
>man's character, particularly when he is going through litigation hell.

Two words for Flixman: Deep Throat.

ste...@magenta.com A free clue for scientology:
The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
- Kosh Naranek, Vorlon ambassador

[Dean Benjamin]

Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> [...] stories that remain unchallenged on Usenet become accepted as

> truth the longer they remain that way. Arnie found the time to
> splutter at all of us as an initial reaction to BJ. I am surprised
> he has not found the time to issue a formal statement (including the
> requested reassurances) backed up by facts.

rke...@voicenet.com (Rod Keller):

> I'm not surprised, and I doubt this hatchet job will become accepted
> truth. As has been pointed out, the enemy of my enemy is not
> necessarily my friend. You guys are proving that all over again.
> Let them eat static, Arnie. This assumption that you owe somebody a
> formal statement is bullshit.

Arnie Lerma doesn't *owe* anyone, but he (and FACTNet) will serve
themselves well by issuing a formal statement about their new
relationship with, and regard for, Bob Penny. From my perspective, it
does indeed seem as though Shelley Thompson's principal conclusion is
valid ("FACTNet is in disarray"). FACTNet has abruptly dismissed
their lawyers, they have expelled a founding director -- and they
haven't formally explained why. Instead, a board member is shouting
Bullshit and Fuck You at anti-Co$ activists.

When _any_ institution undergoes upheavals of this magnitude, they
should be prepared for tough questions. The longer their silence, the
more likely its admirers will reach Shelley's conclusion(s).

At the very least, a pro forma statement like, "We regret Penny's
departure, and wish him well as he struggles with the debilitating
effects of MS" is appropriate -- unless Penny's expulsion was due to
the hostility of his fellow board members. Why hasn't Arnie yet
expressed a similar sentiment?

[Stuart P. Derby]

In article <4vt1di$1...@hal.cs.duke.edu>, ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:

: The job of a good journalist is to tell the truth, even if it makes the

: Co$ happy. Ignoring reality is not the best way to improve reality.

I'd say, "the job of a good journalist is to *try* to tell the truth, as
best they can, even if makes the Co$ happy". Given **BJ**s track record, I
continue to think Shelly is living up to that standard. Of course, that
standard allows for *really* big fuck-ups, and this may or may not be one.

I expect Shelly knows quite well who her "anonymous" sources are (if she
doesn't, she's a fool). That she doesn't tell us who they are makes it
impossible for us to judge how good her information is, so it just forces
us to decide whether we trust the reporter or not, and wonder whether or
not she has been scammed by someone. Real journalists use sources they
don't name to the public all the time! I can't count the number of times
I've heard "a senior White House official..." on CNN or in AP dispatches.
And sometimes real journalists get scammed, and sometimes they even get
sued. (An "anonymous source" case is finally going to trial here in
Houston.) Given **BJ**s limits, I think it's more likely that major errors
are going to slither into **BJ** than into a CNN report, but that's not
due to keeping sources anonymous, but rather due to lack of experience and
lack of an independent editor.

Frankly, I don't think we'll ever know the truth except by watching what
happens over the years, and I ain't gonna waste any more of my time
posting on this issue. There are more important things in my life, even in
my life on ARS.

-Stu
--
Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as
a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming
for the mainstream. -Time Magazine cover story, May 6, 1991
(available at <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html> )

[Sister Clara]

I am not going over ground again which is covered in other posts by myself
and others. Rather than respond to the whole post, I will comment on a
couple of comments contained within it.

In article <32220289...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

> [snip]

>
> We know something about Arnaldo Lerma. I know of no reason to consider him a
> liar. I do know that he has cried long and loud of being "raped" by the CoS
> in the raid of his home. My instincts say he is sincere and means to fight
> this. He can be brusque, and he is no PR specialist -- but neither is he
> obligated to be one. He's got enough on his plate.

Arnie has always been the spokesman for FACTnet on ars. That is a role he
has taken to willingly and he is not normally reticent when it comes to
posting documents relevant to his individual case and that of FACTnet.

Whether the story is based in fact or not (I am an agnostic while you
clearly see it as totally false) even a none-PR specialist can see that the
longer the claims made within it stand without a calm coherent, fact-based
response, the more damage is done to the reputation of FACTnet.

I have always liked Arnie and have supported him on many occasions when
critics other than I have questioned aspects of his case and that of
FACTnet. But Arnie Lerma is NOT FACTnet, though his position as the main
representative on ars and as a board member (what a tiny board now remains)
have placed him in the firing line.

Those who have seen over the last two years (and the last year in
particular) the level of support I have given him would do well to ask
themselves why a critic like myself would feel the need for the categoric
statement I have been seeking. And how many other established critics are
asking the same questions.........

> [snip]

>
> AL was himself the source for the one solid part of the story, about Penny's
> removal from the board. He reported this promptly, on the Internet via IRC.
> He offered a explanation, but he did not answer some questions that could
> reasonably e deemed insulting.

I assume you were either there or have read the logs. Otherwise you are
yourself guilty of making judgement by assumption.

Why did Arnie feel that reporting a particular event on IRC was a substitute
for reporting a highly significant event (the removal of a board member from
FACTnet) to the wider forum of ars? As I have said before, IRC is no more a
"secure" environment than ars.

>
> A FACTnet vs Penny lawsuit would be a complete discreditation of anything
> FACTnet might stand for. To indicate that such an event is likely to happen
> on the basis of an "anonymous source" is against basic journalistic standards
> as practiced at any newspaper worth its salt, or as taught at any university.

I think you live in a different world.

>
> You simply do not impugn anyone's' character based on "anonymous reports." I
> am speaking here about the "FACTnet to sue Penny" portion of the report, not
> about Penny's removal.

Shelley has the same right to speculate on the basis of facts and "anonymous
sources" as any editor in an editorial. I see speculation of this kind by
political columnists in my newspaper (a highly respected journal) every day.

[Aaron Minner]

Marina Chong wrote:

(otherwise seemingly intelligent position concerning the disputing
of NJ's contents snipped...)

> [followups set to a.r.s. -- is this thread *really* on-topic in:
> misc.legal.computing

Um, I know this is lame, but, yes, in a way, it is.
(Here's where it gets lame; sorry...) Some of us have
restricted news feeds, and don't get a lot of the "alt"
stuff, like ars, and misc.legal.computing is the next
best thing.

Aaron

[Rich Burroughs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:53:30 GMT, mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong)
wrote:

[snip]
> As has already been mentioned several times in this thread, Shelley checked the
> story with several (anonymous) sources. Her three attempts to get Lerma's side
> of the story were rejected by him.

It has not yet been determined, AFAIK, whether or not she indicated
to him the _specific charges_ she was going to print, though, and
allow him a chance to comment. Whether she felt he was
stonewalling her or not, I think it would only have been fair to be
very specific about the charges and then ask for comment.

I don't know whether or not she did this. It certainly wasn't clear to
me from her earlier response to Arnie that she did.

> What is she supposed to do, trash the article based on one person's refusal to
> comment?
[snip]

No. She might even have made note of it in the article.

Rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMiJlEinhWc34xW2VAQGZsQf+O9x7cFfgBpHpNrkFxv87W1yBdrF8Kwe7
QMzcy1HaUMcQOanzwRY0E8ThUJUWxyHAcpSwqnpfzEImNOUI5PxqLuiarppEiG/N
TM8HYbdWW81fke3fVzm+tQyreAjdMyw56sV4lRjkpTGsbqrbX+6AqjwrOUGVyxu7
HAcuncmYOL5DWg+iOSCvht3YpF+T5RQklb0iMg+duPW5clGhUUEeLw7YDvEHA0my
RbXGZ5ovrTYjq/BxEPVscoaFSM9RG8gxSkLcDeJq+N2PSZnv1RWn8AeGS0GBQ4+9
h0LgF8xvugJmfZDGww5TNd91pkxnqH423qbiRwJu7tmr+MSq2BbwDA==
=i5P1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

[Rich Burroughs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 01:55:07 GMT, bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
wrote:

[snip]

> I would add that Shelley's accounts of the trials and other occurances
> have not been questioned. If she's accurate in every other area, what
> makes people think that she would suddenly become sloppy and
> unattentive in this one?

[snip]

The accounts of trials are based on firsthand observation,
not anonymous sources. Quite a different matter.

This is the first time, AFAIK, that the subject of one of her
stories has stepped forward to say the story was "rubbish,"
and to impugn her reporting.

Also, the fact that the charges she made are so serious has
a lot to do with it. I doubt you would be seeing such a
response if Ron Newman claimed the little rabbit was wrong
about his love life.

I just want to know whether or not she confronted Arnie,
Wollersheim, etc. with the specific charges she was about
to level (not just a request for an interview or inside info
about FACTNet) before she ran the story. This is a very
important point, IMHO. Had she done so, they would
have had an opportunity to deny the charges (which she
could have quoted in her article -- it is very one-sided, as it
stands) and to correct any inaccuracies.

The fact that Arnie did not cooperate with her in the writing
of the article does not mean that she had no obligation to
present him with the charges before printing them, IMHO.

Please note that I am not claiming that she didn't do this. I
don't know. It doesn't seem likely to me, though, based
on what I've heard (Alerma's shocked denial, Shelley's
response to him mentioning how she had tried to contact
him).

Rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMiL5KynhWc34xW2VAQFRggf/Wpf9zoyBN93hCJ+O2h6yaYQkv7/Xv1SU
xoT1UdWFb2ipRhRvvWv4m3wXwgya84Z9Q3JYq6UayKzog6uWXPdWUA0KSyuBneyy
/NpkqTsThv377fiZLicsbv4yHDyqhxCuGpNC+WpEQqL5+JAT4fi/iZaWzyW3VRyT
Y9uaVri7+LfB39vRjyZp6zWBmNY+u6s12cQMSA6iDWkrTBYzOHA1SrFN7HMQ9B8o
n7GPFnwUxnRpMoaDhHCRmQy9VcVBfQnTa2I204vEfhFFb47GAUuJsfmo0Db1zpBu
nJlvnBoU0JPpcoU3TQ63a3Cr66sbqb4rBrsvFLvTi/lKqH2jTFzCIA==
=8biR

[Margelis]

Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:19:33 +0100
Message-ID: <f90f...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>

In article <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin) wrote:

Hi, Sis,

First of all, I'm surprised (though not astonished) that you received an
e-mail from me, 'cause I didn't mean to cc the post to you; that's why you
didn't get a P&M notice.

From what I recall reading, the issues you brought up re my post have been
answered and answered again, though you don't seem to think so.

<much snippage and skippage follows; all these things have been said so
many times already...>

Robert Martin:

>> 2. He is up to here in legal chaos at the moment, and doesn't exactly
need
>> the extra burden of giving you and the Co$ the satisfaction of seeing
him do
>> a legal striptease here in the newsgroup.

Sister Clara:

>I am not asking for a legal striptease, as you call it. The statement I
have
>asked for simply relates to whether or not Bob Penny will ever be sued by
>FACTNet or either of its two directors and whether the blame for the
whole
>case will be laid to rest on his shoulders.

THIS IS PRECISELY THE QUESTION WHICH ARNIE ANSWERED REPEATEDLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY in his immediate response to the BJ article. And I quote:

BJ:
>>This was a blow to Penny, who now must start looking for new >>attorneys
for the copyright case and
>>worry about the potential lawsuit from FACTNet.

Arnie:

> There is no poterntial for a lawsuit - I cant even discuss this
>without spitting.

Did you read this, Clara? as well as:

BJ:
His removal
>>also made him a potential target of lawsuits by the remaining board
>>members.
>
arnie:
Complete and utter rubbish, - where are you gettinbg this
CRAP!?????

as well as:

BJ:
Will FACTNet sue Penny?

arnie:

???? RUBBISH ????

Clara:

>There are other questions which
>could be usefully answered of course, arising from the story in BJ, but I
>would prefer to leave those to the discretion of Arnie as to whether he

>feels it would be wise to make a statement which also covers those.A

clear statement several days ago which
>covered those areas I have outlined would have helped.

HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD HE GET?

>But all I hear is silence........

If you didn"t believe him the first time, why should he waste his time
repeating it?

>Tell me, Robert, if a newspaper printed a story where it accused you of
>having done various things and of having the intention to do other
>particular things in the future, and these accusations were false, what
>would *you* do? Would you write a hasty note to the editor (or possibly
>speak to him on the phone) and simply keep on repeating that the
>accusations
>were "rubbish"?

What more is there to say? A detailed outline of exactly in what way they
intend *not* to sue Bob? What more is there to say about a negative?
"No" is "no", Clara. Either you believe it or not. If you didn't believe
it the first time arnie said it, I don't know what makes you think his
repeating it will convince you.

>Or would you rather sit down and calmly write to him giving clear
>unequivocal statements which would put the record straight?

Can you please explain to me what is equivocal about this statement,
Clara?


arnie:

> There is no poterntial for a lawsuit - I cant even discuss this
>without spitting.

Again, what's equivocal, Clara? (the context is a few lines above, if you
need that for your argument)

Clara:

>Repetition.....is there a three strikes, you're out rule?

So how come you need for arnie to repeat what he has stated quite clearly
already: that FACTNET has no intention of sueing Bob Penny.

>There you go again, questioning Shelley's integrity. Quite breathtaking
>really considering the brief time you seem to have been hanging >around
this
>newsgroup.

*Flunk*, Sis: irrelevant. Robert seems to have quite a good grasp of
what's going on here; seniority doesn't equal rightness, ya know.

And I don't believe Shelley's "integrity" is at stake here. You seem to
think that for Shelley to have behaved irresponsibly in regard to a single
story out of many in BJ is the moral and ethical equivalent of arnie and
Larry's sueing Bob Penny.

Well, it's not. It was a mistake on her part; that's all. You might as
well stop defending her on that score, because whatever arnie does or
doesn't say in the future, nothing will alter the fact that Shelley
*didn't check her facts properly*--no matter how much you may want to
pretend that her questions to arnie which *preceded* her writing her
article, and made no mention of the serious charges therein, constituted
fact-checking.

Robert:

> 1. The lynchmob mentality engendered by this report is shameful. It
merits
> absolutely *no* response at all, and if you get one, it is entirely
through
> Arnaldo's largesse.

Clara:

>I agree about the lynchmob. The odd thing is that the only lynchmob I
have
>seen has been heading towards Shelley.

So what's the mob going to do to Shelley for making a mistake? Two lashes
with a wet noodle? Many journalists take flak now and then if they, as
Shelley did in this case, behave badly; and I doubt if it ordinarily has
much, if any, effect on their careers or ultimate reputations.
Particularly if they are gracious enough to acknowledge their mistake and
apologize (I am not speaking here about any mistakes in the article, but
simply about Shelley's mistake in neglecting to give arnie the chance to
answer her serious charges prior to publication).

Arnie, Larry, and FACTNET are a different case entirely; first of all,
while the charge against Shelley is undeniably true--she didn't properly
check her facts--, UNLESS ARNIE IS LYING, THE CHARGE THAT FACTNET IS
CONSIDERING SUING BOB PENNY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

Secondly, the allegation that FACTNET would sue one of its own members,
and one who is in the grip of a devastating illness, is *extremely
serious*, and could have repercussions that affect FACTNET's ability to do
its important work.

You keep on with "arnie should do this" and "arnie should do that."
(imaginary quotes;-) ) And "he has to answer to potential FACTNET
contributors."

How about ":arnie should never have been put in this easily avoidable
position in which he, loaded down with legal crap, as he is, is now being
asked to spend time repeatedly denying something that should never have
been said in the first place; and wouldn't have been, if proper
journalistic procedures, or even rules of common courtesy had been
followed."

<snip>

Clara:

>The longer the silence goes on, the more the "no smoke without
>fire" argument will gain a foothold here.

Once again, *what silence*, Clara? arnie responded immediately with a
categorical denial; you want it written in blood, maybe?

On the point you named (correctly, I think) as the most important, and the
one which most needed to be answered, his statement was quite clear. Here
it is again (three strikes and I'm out, right?:-) )

arnie:

> There is no poterntial for a lawsuit - I cant even discuss this
>without spitting.

As for the "no smoke without fire" argument, turning up the smoke volume
in preparation for such an argument seems to be your specialty in this
case.

Sister Clara:

>Bob Penny has rights too in common with all other MS sufferers who have
to
>fight continually against a ghastly, debilitating, degenerative disease.
I
>want to see those rights upheld. A clear statement

arnie:

>> THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR A LAWSUIT - I CAN'T EVEN >>DISCUSS THIS
WITHOUT SPITTING.

>several days ago which
>covered those areas I have outlined would have helped.

>But all I hear is silence........

There is no deafness like the deafness of those who refuse to hear...

Robert:

>> This article was an invitation to a lynching, and you seem to be one of
the
>> few ready to haul out the rope.

Sister Clara:

>Sure, sure, Robert, anything you say.....

~~

Margaret H.

"complete rubbish.. we are continuing to stand together.
you have no idea of the devotion we have to Bob Penny.
You couldnt know. You think you print facts... you have
no idea shelly."

Arnaldo Lerma

[henry]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <e6c6...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>As Shelley has pointed out in another post, she gave Arnie at least three
>opportunities to comment on these allegations before she went to print. I
>think that covers the "chance to comment" bit.

this is simply unproven. i have seen absolutely no indication that
shelley allowed lerma to comment on these allegations, as well as
speculations as to possible future actions. she asked lerma to
give her an interview. neither she nor anyone else has claimed
that she let lerma know that if he didn't, she'd write something
saying he is a back-stabbing traitor.

>Journalism is always described as "irresponsible" when the person does not
>like the message. Funny that, isn't it? I have noticed a number of people,
>both here and on IRC, condemn the article when they cannot possibly KNOW
>whether the information in it is accurate or not.

i have some speculations as to the identities of the sources,
and as far as seems reasonable, all of the likely sources are
close to bob penny and angry with larry wollersheim. at
least one of these sources is almost certainly margery
wakefield.

>Either you know what you are talking about, or you do not, Margaret. If you
>DO know what you are talking about here, I would like to know HOW? Why
>should YOU be privy to the inner machinations of FACTNet?

in fact, why should YOU be privy to it, yourself?

[. . .]

>The central tenet of that article was that there was a strong possibility
>that Bob Penny would be sued in the future by FACTNet in order to further
>their interests. The only way that particular expressed fear can be laid to
>rest is through a clear and unequivocal pledge to the readers of
>alt.religion.scientology by Arnie, in the name of the board of FACTNet, that
>this will NOT happen. I have not yet seen such a statement (that should be
>fairly easy to give, surely) and I expect to see one in the next couple of
>days.

i agree with this. unless the FACTnet folks make it clear
that they are not going to sue bob penny now or ever, nobody
in their right mind is going to send money to FACTnet to
sue its own board members.

arnie has denied this emphatically any time i've seen him
discuss it, and seems enraged by the mere speculation.
however, i can't read larry wollersheim's twisted mind,
and i've never known arnie to stand up to wolly no
matter what kind of self-defeating insanity he commits.

sorry, blunt but true. i can't trust FACTnet because
i can't trust larry wollersheim.

>If no statement of that kind is forthcoming, then I will have to conclude
>that the fears expressed by Shelley have some basis in fact and the events
>she describes as possible may indeed come to pass. And, if that indeed was
>the case, I would regard any such action against Bob Penny to be utterly
>despicable.

>My challenge was made clear in a previous post on this thread.

yep. i can't trust FACTnet if such a despicable act is
even a remote possibility.

>It was. They (or at least Arnie) refused to respond. Why can't you read? If
>your newsfeed is too slow, use dejanews before making wild assertions of
>this kind.

as far as i can tell, shelley never told arnie what he was
going to be accused of if he dared absent himself from her
inquisition. anyone who has ever been interviewed by shelley
can testify that she has an interviewing style like the
nazi dentist in marathon man, capriciously sits on interviews
for months, throws tirades if anyone dares report
her 'scoop' beforehand, and isn't even above shitcanning
an interview entirely, after wasting hours of your time,
if she decides she feels like it.

>That dialogue (if it could be called such) certainly could not be regarded
>as a rebuttal! Only a clear statement that Bob Penny will not be sued by
>FACTNet and that this action is not (and never has been) contemplated can
>put this baby to rest.

>Arnie's response to the article was hysterical and incoherent (as has been
>noted by others). Just as it was on IRC, where a net citizen was told to
>mind his own business.

the ONE thing that was coherent in this denial was the absolute,
clearcut denial of lerma's intent to have anything to do with
suing penny. didn't you read it? he denied a lawsuit against
penny would ever happen, said he and larry would stand behind
penny forever, etc. the response was obviously enraged, as
even the typography reveals that arnie was banging at the
keyboard.

frankly, i don't blame him for being incensed.

unless shelley actually told arnie what she was about to
accuse him of, specifically, i fail to see how he could
be faulted for not talking to her or denying it.

>If any harm comes to FACTNet it will be through its own actions.

>Now can anyone give me ONE GOOD REASON why Bob Penny has been left swinging
>in the wind?

i've seen numerous speculations--nothing solid. one is that
it is what it is claimed to be by FACTnet--another is that
wollersheim decided to screw bob penny. another is that it
was an internecine squabble with penny and faegre & benson
on one side and arnie and larry on the other. the truth
is probably more complicated.

>And I still await the official reason why he has been deemed "incompetent."

so do i. he just recently posted an article from the
daily planet, and appears to be here on ars now. i
wonder if he has any comments on his competence--whenever
he's posted in the past, he's comes across as more
competent and reasonable than larry, who is a loon.

h

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/

iQBVAwUBMiMwtXZ/m2/Pgo35AQEMrwH/eKSbhlnBu8VEtawD3wjsoriSr0CmQ79a
w4u2FADyeHZ5CvPv0aB7x3bzrkuTqrpWhVyymMaOOIIzsgBRv9mWCQ==
=5hB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bernie]

Rich Burroughs wrote:

> I do wonder if she gave Arnie a chance to comment on the specific
> allegations she made in the article, though. Did she just try to
> contact him three times saying that she was writing an article, or
> did she actually spell out for him the allegations and ask for his
> comment?

> You know, like in "All the President's Men," where right before they
> run the article they call the White House for comment (and get "no
> comment," or something like that).

Or like in "Yes Minister" where they submit something for the Minister's
urgent approval as he is rushing to catch his plane.

> IANAJ, but it's my understanding that this is done for at least a few
> reasons:

IANAJ?

> 1) It's fair.
>
> 2) It helps with accuracy (after all, Lerma and Wollersheim may have
> the most accurate knowledge about what their plans are).
>
> 3) I also believe that it is some protection in case of a libel suit. IANAL
> either, though, and am not certain of this.

IANAL? (it gets nasty)

------
Bernie

*after all, Lerma and Wollersheim
*may have the most accurate knowledge
*about what their plans are
(R.Burroughs)

[Robert Martin]

Hillel, God's gift to The Immoral Minority, brightened
alt.religion.scientology with the words:

>In article <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Robert Martin <fli...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>5. The next person who claims they are owed an explanation because FACTNet

>>solicits donations should also post how much money they actually donated.
>

>\begin{sarcasm}
>The next person who claims they are owed an explanation what the "Church"
>of $cientology does with the "donations" should also post how much money
>they actually donated.
>\end{sarcasm}

Yeah right Arnie Lerma = Co$. No wonder AL doesn't want anything to do with
the scumbags in this group -- some friends he's got here.

I've only been here a few weeks, and I don't know most people here from Adam,
so it doesn't bother me to tell you assholes what complete assholes you are.

The church may have nothing to do with this, but this is what they call
"dead-agenting," probably being practiced by a former Scieno who won't let go
of the tech.

You just made that person feel real good, hope you're proud of yourself.

>
>>And what is this supposed to accomplish? I mean, besides giving you the
>>impression that you had a part in this drama, compromising FACTnet's case,
>>and giving Co$'s ARS monitors a good giggle?
>

>The job of a good journalist is to tell the truth, even if it makes the
>Co$ happy. Ignoring reality is not the best way to improve reality.

If there was the slightest reason to think there was any truth in this, sure,
but you are way off the mark. There is no truth in it, there is no reason to
suspect there is truth in it, and everybody who piled on AL is a vicious.
bloodthirsty idiot.

Some of you people should think long and hard about whether you're still the
gullible fools who signed up with Scientology in the first place, You finally
wised up to the friggin' church, but you can still be led around by the nose
with an anonymous report that one of the church's key enemies is a low slime.
Just when he's preparing some crucial legal documents -- how friggin'
convenient for the church.

I've never seen such stupidity in my life. I would give up on this whoe
stinking newsgroup, except there do seem to be a few sane people here

I've made all the arguments I'm going to make, but I just want you to know
that you are grade-a scum. I hope an "anonymous source" gets to your back
with a knife someday, ya fuckhead. I'll personally kick your lifeless corpse
into the gutter.

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Margelis]

Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

From: mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong)
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:53:30 GMT
Message-ID: <32207303...@snews.zippo.com>

On 25 Aug 1996 14:30:56 GMT rke...@voicenet.com (Rod Keller) wrote in
article
<4vpo30$e...@gnews2.voicenet.com>

>I doubt this hatchet job will become accepted
>>truth. As has been pointed out, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily
>>my friend. You guys are proving that all over again. Let them eat
static,
>>Arnie. This assumption that you owe somebody a formal statement is
>>bullshit.

>Hatchet job? If someone posts information that you do not like it
automatically
>becomes a hatchet job?

IF (as is the case, assuming Arnie is telling the truth about FACTNET's
intentions toward Bob Penny) false and defamatory information is printed
about a person or entity, without the writer's having taken care to try to
make sure those facts are correct (in which case it is an unfortunate
accident) such a false and defamatory report is known in the vernacular as
a "hatchet job."

>As has already been mentioned several times in this thread, Shelley
checked the
>story with several (anonymous) sources.

As has been stated by Robert Martin in this thread, anonymous sources are
not sufficient when one is dealing with information which seriously
impugns a person's reputation. The information must be checked with
sources who are prepared to stand behind their words. If possible (and it
*was* possible in this case), with the potential victim of the potential
libel.

>Her three attempts to get Lerma's side
>of the story were rejected by him.

Three times, ten times, this is all just obfuscation on Shelley's part.

*One* time would have been sufficient *if* it had been to check the
truth about the serious charges she was preparing to bring in her article.

If she had approached him *one hundred* times to "get Lerma's side of the
story," and he had rejected her, that is still not grounds for throwing
reportorial responsibility to the wind. and neglecting to properly check
damaging information before printing it.

In fact those three times he refused to talk with her raise the question
of whether there might have been some vindictiveness in her decision to
print the anonymous "information" without checking it with the parties
most involved. It certainly sounded that way in her response to his post.
And there is no place in honest journalism, IMO, for that kind of
pettiness.

Please tell me, Marina--what possible reason was there for Shelley *not*
to let arnie know about the allegations and give him a chance to respond?

>What is she supposed to do, trash the article based on one person's
refusal to
>comment?

No, Marina, she is supposed to tell arnie what it is that is being alleged
in the article, and give him a chance to respond. His response was
immediate when he saw the article. Do you think it would have been any
less immediate if she had informed him of the allegation *before* posting
it?

<snip>

>If the Factnet board has no intention to treat Bob Penny in the way as
outlined
>in ***BJ*** then let it say so.

Are you seriously suggesting, Marina, that arnie has *not* said so?

I just don't get it. Do you read the posts you respond to?

> It's easy enough and costs nothing.

And it has already been done. So what's the problem?

MH

[Ted Mayett (Xenu)]

inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:

> Being able to demand straight answers from each other is part of the
>bargain we make in order to post here. And having to answer up is
>another. It just goes with the turf.
>

Gosh, where does that put me?
I'm the type to request a straight answer. Not demand it.

And I owe no answers to anybody.
I just figure that other people are here as I am, because I choose to
be. Or rather, we are here because we care. I see "having to answer"
a curse of litigants. Not a posting requirement.

But then I haven't read the ARSCC Rules Sheet yet :)

Next International Picket of Scientology Sept. 7 and/or 8, 1996: see
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm

[Robert Martin]

This will have to serve as reply to all who have written, wishing to argue
further about Arnie. I've already neglected my work far too much in order to
argue with people who simply cannot hear me.

I would not agree with Dennis that anyone has the right to *demand* answers.
We do have the right to *expect* answers from one another, and I would have
expected answers of Arnie if this had begun according to any decent,
dignified protocol.

Instead, Arnie was sniped at from the stance of a "reporter" -- one who did
not do her homework. Sister Clara believes she has nothing to learn of
journalistic standards, she believes that it is appropriate to call a man a
liar and a betrayer based on an "anonymous source."

This is *so wrong.* It would be wrong at any magazine except the cheapest
pulp, wrong at any newspaper except the lowest tabloid. If Sister Clara
believes otherwise, she may wallow in her ignorance, but there is obviously
no way I can persuade her otherwise. My twenty-plus years as a writer may
count for nothing in her estimation. What can I say? There is no way to argue
with her; her "agnosticism" is a sham. She knows it all. My twenty years as a
writer mean nothing. Though I would like her to find one story in a
legitimate publication, anywhere, that impugns a man's character based solely
on anonymous sources.

This kind of sniping is even more wrong when Arnie is one of the "point men"
in the struggle to bring the criminal church to justice. Arnie is suing the
damn church! While I agree that it's dirty pool to call one another "OSA" in
argument, it is *quite rational* to assume that the church is in fact among
us, in the guise of friends. I am not saying that Shelley or her source are
dead-agenting Arnie; however, I am saying that *any* tolerance of this sort
of scurrilous, half-baked "anonymous source" accusation is an *invitation* to
the church to ruin every active member of this group one at a time. They
didn't coin the phrase "dead-agenting" for sport, and where is a better place
to practice it? What is a better device than an "anonymous source?"

I would never suggest that Shelley tell anyone who her source is, but I would
ask Shelley to keep a careful eye on that individual -- at least as careful
an eye as she has on Arnie, because this shenanigan is much harder for me to
understand than Bob Penny's removal from the FACTNet board.

Dennis is also a "point man," and I know that he's a keen observer of people.
I would think that Dennis would realize that Arnie's emotions are nearer to
the surface than his own. Look at the emotional tone he uses to describe the
raid, for instance. How do you suppose he felt upon reading the text of the
article? What words do you suppose come to his mind if he sits to write a
reply? I have imagined from the first that Arnie felt deeply hurt, betrayed,
and angry. I have imagined that he did not see this group, that served as
emotional sustenance for him, rise to the bait of the poison pen, with any
sense of charity or indebtedness.

How could he? If this sort of thing were to happen to Dennis, he could deal
with it - he would fry his opponents to a turn, but he would also acquit
himself well in argument -- and if he were not posting here while a
discussion like this was going on, I would wonder about him.

But Arnie? I don't think he'd acquit himself well with the lynchmob. (Sis
Clara says I am lynching Shelley -- that's ridiculous. I have called her
reporting amateur, lazy and possibly fraudulent; that is an assessment of the
work -- and is nowhere near the scale of the accusations made against Arnie.)
If you look at Arnie's initial response, you can easily tell how shocked he
is, how much in a rage. Some people do not grow more articulate in anger --
Arnie seems to me to be one of these. You people know him better than I! I
would think it was obvious.

Anyway; so many people are anxious to hear from Arnie. Well, I heard from
him. It upsets me that, as new as I am to this group, he finds himself
uncomfortable writing to people he's known for a much longer time.

He said I could do what I wanted with his letter. I probably will regret
posting it here -- after all the Bible says "Cast not your pearls before
swine," and, while I trust that the vast majority here will repond
positively, I half-expect that the emotions Arnie displays here will just
rouse the lynchmob more -- sensing what they imagine to be 'weakness' in
Arnie's emotionality, I predict their attacks will grow more vicious (please,
surprise me).

But I also believe some people will read it and recover their perspective,
and perhaps their sense of shame.

I am usually not gung-ho on "shame" as something people should often feel,
but in this instance, it seems the most fitting response. No one has any
right to demand or expect answers from Arnie, if they have not fulfilled
their end of the social contract -- i.e., allowed him at least some respect,
if not trust.

I have to get back to work. I hope others who trust Arnie will help deal with
this until such time as Arnie can spare enough of his energy to be able to
deal with this himself.

The guy's got a knife in his back, and some people are saying, "he must
deserve it, because he didn't defend himself." God help you people; I find
your behavior barely human, and thoroughly disgusting Wake up to yourself,
because if you don't the church will eat you alive.

The first part is the reply I sent him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Arnie.

I know exactly what you mean -- nothing in your note surprises me,
particularly the feelings of hurt and betrayal. I neglected my own work on
Monday in order to do what little I could to deal with the shitstorm that
article roused in the small handful of people who bought it -- but I don't
mind, as I know what you're involved with is a great deal more important.

There's not much I can say to cheer you, which is what I'd most like to do,
but I'm not too happy about all this myself. "Life's not a popularity
contest" is what my dad used to say. At any rate, time will tell, and sooner
or later even the Vultures of Usenet will come to recover their lost sense of
shame.

Thank you for 'fighting the good fight.' I know a lot of others feel the same
as I.

On Mon, 26 Aug 96 05:50:26 +0000, you wrote:

> Message-ID: <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
> I am sorry I lose my temper when dealing with what I consider
> crap.
>
> I appreciate the time you spent stating articulately
> that which I would have likely laced with invective
> as my ire rose thinking about what I was responding to.
>
> I was also exceptionally hurt as shellys presence and acceptance on this
> group is to some degree my doing, I originally introduced her to folks
> here.
>
> I never expected her to do something like this, perhaps I leaned too
> heavily on that familiarity - you see I had been up for many days
> putting together the filing that I filed on tuesday...
>
> She came at me with some hairbrained questions about a topic I chose
> to not discuss - for very good reasons - malpractice is involved, client
> attorney relationships are involved, breaches of trust, and she wants me
> to play this on ARS? -and then suing Bob, my only response is still -
> complete rubbish - and I challenge her twisted manipulating source to call
> me anytime at 703 241 1498 'cause I have taken to TAPE EVERYTHING and
> Ive been up for days .... rolling my own first pro se motion, much to do
>
>
> Thats the deadline I was on, I wasnt even reading much mail.
> she claims she asked me three times? news to me
>
> hell I dunno.
>
> bob penny seems to posting again.. using the rmii account.or
> someone from his home is. Only cause I managed to pay the bill...on THU=
>RSDAY.
>
> Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
>
> I swear there is neither real or imagined motive nor could such motive
> ever BE.
> =
>
> I honor that man, I am honored to be a director and help the survival
> of the organization that Bob Penny built.
>
>
> I cannot describe the knot I feel in my gut when I try to even dignify
> Shellys statements with a response. I feel it now.
>
> And I have only so much capacity for angst.
>
> I try to preserve my mental ability to deal with infuriating consternation
> to the cult's actions and what passes for a judical system.
>
> And there is too much to do.
>
> Gratefully yours,
>
> Arnie Lerma
> You may use this email any way you wish.
>
> These people have no idea... none.
> The only ones I always answer, are those who have been there...
> Until you have litigated the cult, you have'nt litgated...
> There is nothing else like it.
>
>

Xenu Barata Nicto

[Robert Martin]

Robert Martin, God's gift to He-Who-Bows-Before-Xenu, Inc., brightened
alt.religion.scientology with the words:

>Though I would like her to find one story in a
>legitimate publication, anywhere, that impugns a man's character based solely
>on anonymous sources.

Oh, one exception (the one that proves the rule), Nixon and "Deep Throat" in
the Washington Post. But you can rent "All The President's Men" and hear
extensive dialog about what an exception that was, and the lengths to which
the reporters had to go to verify Deep Throat's info before their editor
would allow them to go to press.

And Arnie is not Nixon, anyway.

Xenu Barata Nicto

[StarOwl]

On 27 Aug 1996 05:24:16 GMT, ste...@magenta.com (STella) wrote:

>In article <3221e3b1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Robert Martin <fli...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>Here's a fact: "anonymous sources" do not provide a basis for savaging a
>>man's character, particularly when he is going through litigation hell.
>
>Two words for Flixman: Deep Throat.

Is that a name, or an invitation? :)

--
___
<*,*> Browne and Jorgenson in '96!
[`-']
-"-"-
star...@triskele.com http://www.rahul.net/starowl

Unless otherwise stated, I do not wish to receive commercial
e-mail. Your sending me unsolicited commercial e-mail implies
your acceptance of the contract available at
http://www.rahul.net/starowl/email.html

[James J. Lippard]

In article <4vsq1p$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

Margelis <marg...@aol.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: **Biased Journalism** V2no16 Inside FACTNet

>From: dei...@sover.net (Deirdre)
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 02:15:07 -0400
>Message-ID: <deirdre-2608...@pm0a5.new.sover.net>

>
>>I agree. Shelley, good job,
>

>GOOD JOB???? GOOD JOB????
>
> I'm not into "vilifying" Shelley (quote from Sis C.) but to take perhaps
>the lowest point of BJ's history (and BJ has done plenty of excellent
>word, IMHO) and characterize it thus is incomprehensible to me.

>
>>sorry for the flame wars. Carry on, tally ho
>>and we'll get any corrections noted.
>
>>_Deirdre
>
>>In article <4vqa4p$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, >lip...@primenet.com
>>(James J. Lippard) wrote:
>
>>> By my reading, Shelley *did* have two independent sources, and *did*
>>> ask Arnie for comment--three times--on top of that.
>

>'Snot sufficient, Dierdre and Jim.
>
> "Ask Arnie for comment"? *Comment on what?* Don't you think that if
>Shelley had given arnie *any* indication of the serious and--according to
>arnie's post on the subject--*false* charges she was preparing to print,
>arnie WOULD have commented?

You are correct. Exactly how Shelly asked for comment is quite relevant
to an evaluation of this issue.

I find myself in strong agreement with henry's recent post on this
subject.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

fli...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Martin):

I think this kind of rhetoric is probably counter productive,
Robert. So I'm gonna goof on it.

>>>5. The next person who claims they are owed an explanation because FACTNet
>>>solicits donations should also post how much money they actually donated.

Hillel:

>>\begin{sarcasm}
>>The next person who claims they are owed an explanation what the "Church"
>>of $cientology does with the "donations" should also post how much money
>>they actually donated.
>>\end{sarcasm}

Robt:

>Yeah right Arnie Lerma = Co$. No wonder AL doesn't want anything to do with
>the scumbags in this group -- some friends he's got here.

We're not scumbags. And we are his friends. That's what gives us
the right to ask Arnie about stuff.

>I've only been here a few weeks, and I don't know most people here from Adam,
>so it doesn't bother me to tell you assholes what complete assholes you are.

<comes to his senses> Thanks, I needed that.

>The church may have nothing to do with this, but this is what they call
>"dead-agenting," probably being practiced by a former Scieno who won't let go
>of the tech.

Shelley has never been in the cult. Nor has Hillel or Sister Clara.

>You just made that person feel real good, hope you're proud of yourself.

I didn't see anything to be ashamed of.

>>>And what is this supposed to accomplish? I mean, besides giving you the
>>>impression that you had a part in this drama, compromising FACTnet's case,
>>>and giving Co$'s ARS monitors a good giggle?
>>
>>The job of a good journalist is to tell the truth, even if it makes the
>>Co$ happy. Ignoring reality is not the best way to improve reality.
>
>If there was the slightest reason to think there was any truth in this, sure,
>but you are way off the mark. There is no truth in it, there is no reason to
>suspect there is truth in it, and everybody who piled on AL is a vicious.
>bloodthirsty idiot.

Or perhaps just very concerned about Bob.

>Some of you people should think long and hard about whether you're still the
>gullible fools who signed up with Scientology in the first place, You finally
>wised up to the friggin' church, but you can still be led around by the nose
>with an anonymous report that one of the church's key enemies is a low slime.

I don't think Arnie is slime. I think very highly of him.

>Just when he's preparing some crucial legal documents -- how friggin'
>convenient for the church.

Sometimes things just work out that way.

>I've never seen such stupidity in my life.

That's because you're new to the newsgroup. Stick around for a
month, you will.

>I would give up on this whoe
>stinking newsgroup, except there do seem to be a few sane people here

Name one.

>I've made all the arguments I'm going to make, but I just want you to know
>that you are grade-a scum.

I'm sorry. I can't help it.

>I hope an "anonymous source" gets to your back
>with a knife someday, ya fuckhead.

Been there, had that done to me.

>I'll personally kick your lifeless corpse into the gutter.

I won't care. My thetan will be dead. Do what you want with my
corpse, Bob.

[Rev. Dennis L Erlich]

ted...@ix.netcom.com (Ted Mayett (Xenu)):

YHN:

>> Being able to demand straight answers from each other is part of the
>>bargain we make in order to post here. And having to answer up is
>>another. It just goes with the turf.

Ted:

>Gosh, where does that put me?

Where do you wanna be put, Ted?

>I'm the type to request a straight answer. Not demand it.

Request, demand, ask for, beg for, whatever. The newsgroup has a
way to get at the truth.

>And I owe no answers to anybody.

That's cause you answer up anyway.

>I just figure that other people are here as I am, because I choose to
>be. Or rather, we are here because we care. I see "having to answer"
>a curse of litigants. Not a posting requirement.

Take it up with the Central Committee.

>But then I haven't read the ARSCC Rules Sheet yet :)

That explains a lot. You were assigned that to read months ago.

[henry]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <23e9...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <DRB.96Au...@cs.cmu.edu>
> d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dean Benjamin) wrote:

[sister clara attempts to explain MS in such a way
that it appears evident that bob penny is most certainly
not 'incompetent' in any known way. i think the
'incompetency' allegations are nothing more than an
attempt to bolster the claims of wollerslime in kicking
him off the board with the willing assistance of
arnie lerma, who is well-known for going along meekly
with even the most idiotic suggestion of wollerslime.

sorry, arnie--but *please* name a time you've not
gone along with this creep, no matter how damaging
he's been to the cause while helping himself out
to the largesse of any sucker willing to give him
money.]

>Thus far, we have seen a coherent account by Shelley without a coherent
>rebuttal in return. It is quite legitimate to ask the questions that have

precisely what was coherent about shelley's bullshit?

is there any real reason to assume that bob penny is
going to be sued? frankly, at even the slightest hint
of a lawsuit against bob penny, who has fearlessly
battled the cult for years, i would fight tooth-and-
nail against the creeps who would commit such an
act.

i have an abiding dislike of wollerslime from his
repeated breaches of netiquette on the few occasions
he dared show his face here, but i do not believe
that even wollerslime would commit such a vile act
as shelley describes as a virtual certainty.

i'd *prefer* that arnie and larry both *formally*
and publicly state as official policy of FACTnet
that there will be *no* lawsuit against bob penny
*EVER*, but even without that i doubt that FACTnet
would suddenly turn into a mafia-like criminal
organization and stab penny in the back like
this.

arnie has already very categorically denied that
any lawsuit against penny exists, or that any such
suit will ever be filed.

my only concern is with wollerslime, who i view
as an untrustworthy con-artist--but not as a
backstabbing thief.

>been raised and equally legitimate to expect some official answers as soon
>as possible (today?). Remember, we are discussing an organisation that
>actively solicits donations. It is not unreasonable to ask about the
>policies and structure of that organisation which are, after all, supposed
>to be open.

yep--but it's not reasonable to *demand* such answers,
merely to reveal what you will be forced to believe
should answers not be forthcoming.

my view?

should the board of directors of FACTnet not come
to an *immediate* decision to *promise* never to
sue bob penny, i will be forced to view FACTnet
as nothing but a huge scam--this has nothing to do
with lerma. it's just that it seems wollersheim
has now managed to remove penny (who *CREATED*
and *ORGANIZED* everything remotely useful about
FACTnet), and left only lerma, who is appearing
to be an impotent puppet of wollersheim, who is
too cowardly a chickenshit to show his face on ars.

sorry, arnie. i approve of *you*, but i can not
approve of FACTnet, which appears to be led by
wollerslime, who is nothing more than a hiding
coward.

[yes, the tone of this is deliberately provocative,
because i want real answers, and not wolllershit.]

h

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/

iQBVAwUBMiO2bHZ/m2/Pgo35AQFM2AIAs++yZOdFDbOD0ycddefm8Ba/2LuuHRCc
oSfhvCMD2Lj+7eI/dYhYkZMFGuEM8aTnhvLfYTqbCN/aP9Z9PdZ13A==
=/6qP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[James J. Lippard]

In article <32237c6e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,

Robert Martin <fli...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Robert Martin, God's gift to He-Who-Bows-Before-Xenu, Inc., brightened
>alt.religion.scientology with the words:
>

>>Though I would like her to find one story in a
>>legitimate publication, anywhere, that impugns a man's character based solely
>>on anonymous sources.
>

>Oh, one exception (the one that proves the rule), Nixon and "Deep Throat" in
>the Washington Post. But you can rent "All The President's Men" and hear
>extensive dialog about what an exception that was, and the lengths to which
>the reporters had to go to verify Deep Throat's info before their editor
>would allow them to go to press.
>
>And Arnie is not Nixon, anyway.

And Deep Throat was probably really a composite of several sources who
Woodward, at least, really did know, including Alexander Haig, who
knew Woodward in the Navy.