DENNIS ERLICH Affidavit Was: PSYCH NURSE JAILED AFTER SCALDING TEA BLISTERS PATIENT'S LIPS
Beverly Rice
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_de.html
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (Bar No.66781)
CARLA B. OAKLEY (Bar No.130092)
MATTHEW K. FAWCETT (Bar No.161087)
MORRISON & FOERSTER
345 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104-2675
Telephone: (415) 677-7000
Facsimile: (415) 677-7522
Attorneys for Defendant
Dennis Erlich
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a No. C-95-20091 RMW
California non-profit corporation; and BRIDGE
PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit
corporation, DECLARATION OF DENNIS
ERLICH
Plaintiffs,
FILED UNDER SEAL
V.
Date: December 8, 1995
DENNIS ERLICH, an individual; TOM Time: 9:00 a.m.
KLEMESRUD, an individual, dba The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
CLEARWOOD DATA SERVICES; and
NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION
Iain Rowe Industries
> SAN JOSE DIVISION RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a No. C-95-20091
> RMW
> Plaintiffs,
> V.
> DENNIS ERLICH, an individual; TOM Time: 9:00 a.m.
> KLEMESRUD, an individual, dba The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Why, what did Dennis Erlich do?
Cornelius Krasel
> Why, what did Dennis Erlich do?
Here is the complete text (for people who are too lazy to follow the
URL given by Beverly):
Affidavit of Dennis Erlich
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (Bar No.66781)
CARLA B. OAKLEY (Bar No.130092)
MATTHEW K. FAWCETT (Bar No.161087)
MORRISON & FOERSTER
345 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104-2675
Telephone: (415) 677-7000
Facsimile: (415) 677-7522
Attorneys for Defendant
Dennis Erlich
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a No. C-95-20091 RMW
California non-profit corporation; and BRIDGE
PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit
corporation, DECLARATION OF DENNIS
ERLICH
Plaintiffs,
FILED UNDER SEAL
V.
Date: December 8, 1995
DENNIS ERLICH, an individual; TOM Time: 9:00 a.m.
KLEMESRUD, an individual, dba The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
CLEARWOOD DATA SERVICES; and
NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
I, Dennis Erlich, declare as follows:
I. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if
called as a witness, could and would testify thereto of my own
personal knowledge.
I. RAID AT MY HOME
2. On the morning of Monday, February 13, 1995, at 7:30 a.m., I was
awake and working at my computer in the office of what was then my
home in Glendale, California. The doorbell rang and I looked out the
window and observed a group of approximately twenty-five people at my
door and in my driveway. I remained inside the house, but soon
received a call from someone identifying himself as an off-duty
Sergeant Ed Eccles of the Inglewood Police Department. Mr. Eccies told
me that he was standing outside my home, that he had a writ of seizure
which allowed him to enter my home and that if I failed to open the
door, he would carry out the writ by force.
3. I told Mr. Eccles that I refused to let so many people in my home.
After some discussion, six people came inside my home. Apart from Mr.
Eccles, these people included three people identified to me as
officials of the Religious Technology Center ("RTC") -- Warren
McShane, Thomas Small and Paul Wilmhurst, RTC's computer operator.
Also present were on-duty Glendale police officer Steve Eggert,
off-duty Inglewood police officer Mark Fronterotta, and a private
investigator hired by RTC's counsel, Robert Shovlin. I did not learn
their names until after the seizure was over. Only Mr. Eccles
identified himself at the outset, but he said he would not identify
the others until after the raid. Once inside my home, Mr. Eccles
presented me with a sheaf of legal documents and declared, "This house
is now under our control."
4. The RTC officials and the other individuals identified in the
preceding paragraph entered my office and proceeded to hook up one of
my computers, which had been disconnected. For approximately one hour,
Mr. Wilmhurst searched through the computer's hard drive. Mr.
Wilmhurst and Mr. McShane also used a separate computer, which they
brought, to search my floppy disks.
5. After approximately one hour, off-duty officer Eccles and officer
Eggert left the scene, leaving Robert Shovlin, the private
investigator, to observe the seizure.
6. The RTC officials demanded to know where my "other" computers were.
They insisted that I unlock the room containing my music studio; once
inside the room, they demanded that I open a closet that held my
second, larger computer.
7. The RTC representatives dragged the second computer into my office,
connected it and began searching my files.
8. Using a 250 megabyte backup tape, the RTC officials began to copy
many of the files from the hard drive of my second computer. They then
proceeded to erase the files that they copied from my hard drive. All
of this occurred without my permission or consent. From what I can
tell, the RTC officials erased files dealing with numerous topics --
including Internet messages, my financial records, my own independent
research into Scientology, and other miscellaneous files having
nothing to do with Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard. Unfortunately, I
cannot know for sure exactly what, or how much, was downloaded or
erased because the RTC officials would not permit me to make an
inventory of the files.
9. In addition to copying and erasing my computer files, RTC officials
searched throughout the remainder of my house. They searched many
areas of my home -- including every closet and cupboard -- that
contained no items related to computers or to Scientology. Finally,
they kicked in my garage door in an attempt to search my garage.
10. While the RTC officials were searching my home and my computers,
the off-duty officers and/or Mr. Shovlin monitored my movements around
the house. When I walked towards the bathroom, Officer Fronterotta
escorted me.
11. I placed telephone calls to my lawyer and a representative of the
Cult Awareness Network to notify others that I was being subjected to
a search. I also wanted to inform them who was executing the search,
but the RTC officials still refused to identify themselves.
12. The search of my home by RTC officials lasted approximately seven
hours. The search was interrupted by the arrival of members of the
media, who took photographs and videotaped the proceedings.
Nevertheless, RTC officials continued to search through my home and my
belongings until approximately 2:00 p.m.
13. Near the end of the search, RTC officials called in their personal
photographer. Without my permission or consent, the photographer took
numerous photographs of my home (inside and out) and my belongings,
including the contents of the cupboards and closests they searched.
RTC's photographer also had a video camera with him.
14. As the RTC officials and the off-duty and retired police officers
prepared to depart, an on-duty Glendale police officer arrived. I
asked the officer for an inventory of the items that were being taken
away. The officer refused my request for an inventory. Consequently,
my sole record of the items taken from home was a handwritten,
incomplete list of items prepared by Sgt. Eccles at approximately 9:00
a.m. A copy of this list is attached as Exhibit A.
15. The RTC officials ultimately took numerous items from my home.
These items included:
a. approximately 300 computer disks in the form of 3 1/2 inch and 5
1/4 inch floppy disks, containing such computer programs as DOS, Aldus
Page Maker, Word Perfect, Turbo Tax, and Quicken;
b. approximately 40 of my books pertaining to Scientology;
c. personal papers pertaining to my research into Scientology;
d. a transcript of a radio broadcast debate between myself and
Scientology official Herber Jentsche;
e. a "demo" tape of songs written by me; and
f. an envelope containing my most recent bank statement.
16. In addition to the articles removed without my consent from my
home, the following articles from my home were damaged by the search
conducted by RTC officials:
a. the computer in my office (the first computer subjected to search
by RTC officials) failed to boot up property after the seizure;
b. my second computer could not run the Windows operating system
program, since RTC officials deleted a necessary instruction in the
Windows program file containing the word "Clear";
c. my garage door was damaged by being kicked in by RTC officials.
17. Although the numerous computer disks mentioned above have been
returned to me, I cannot use these disks for fear that they contain
potentially harmful computer viruses. Thus, these disks -- worth at
least several thousand dollars -- are effectively worthless to me.
II. METHOD USED TO REVIEW ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY POSTINGS
18. It is my understanding that many of the documents RTC seeks to
include in a revised and expanded preliminary injunction are copies of
alleged copyright protected documents that were found on my computer
hard drive during the February 13, 1995, seizure of my home. In the
case of many of the documents, RTC does not claim that I posted them
to the Internet (or anywhere else), but that they were just archived
on my computer. I would like to explain to the Court generally how
this would occur.
19. Given my computer set-up, the way I review all the messages that
are posted to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup ("a.r.s.") is via
an off-line reader. I connect to the Internet through my phone line,
but I only "log on" to the Internet for a very brief period of time.
All I do, once I am on-line," is execute a command that makes an
automatic and sweeping download of all messages posted to a.r.s. that
I have not already downloaded (this can run into the hundreds). I
usually do this one or more times a day. Once the downloading is
complete, which generally last just a couple of minutes, I immediately
disconnect from the Internet. Thus, the only time that I am actually
on the Internet for a.r.s. review is the time it takes for my computer
automatically to download the entire a.r.s. newsgroup on to my
computer's hard drive.
20. I do not control in any way the number or selection of messages
that are downloaded from a.r.s. on to my hard drive. I also do not in
any way "pre-screen" the a.r.s. postings before they are downloaded
onto my hard drive. Everything that occurs in the downloading process
happens electronically and without my control. Thus, if anybody posts
copyrighted works to a.r.s., those postings would automatically be
downloaded to and stored on my hard drive without my control, along
with everything else posted on a.r.s.
21. After my computer executes the downloading, all the postings are
stored on my hard drive. Then, I can read all the new a.r.s. messages
at my leisure. Generally, I do not delete these messages after I have
read them, but instead retain them for my personal research and study.
III. NATURE OF DISCUSSION ON ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY NEWSGROUP
22. The patterns and practices for posting messages to the a.r.s.
newsgroup is important to evaluating my postings to a.r.s.
Specifically, the way that "threads" of postings relate to one another
and spark debate, in what must seem like a chaotic environment to
novices, is critical. Given the unmoderated and often volatile
environment or the a.r.s. newsgroup, in my view it is especially
necessary to use the words of L. Ron Hubbard exactly as they were
written in order to carry out an effective and meaningful critique of
Scientology's practices.
23. The a.r.s. newsgroup is incredibly busy. An enormous number of
messages are posted there every day. In order effectively to carry out
my mission of educating the public about what I believe is a deceitful
and dangerous organization, it is absolutely critical that readers of
the a.r.s. newsgroup believe I am credible. In order to achieve that
level of credibility, it is essential to acknowledge, understand and
comment on the words of Mr. Hubbard precisely and as written. There
are at least four reasons for this.
24. First, it ensures my audience that I know what I am talking about,
that I am familiar with Scientology. This is important because there
are many people who post messages (both critical and praiseworthy) who
simply do not have sufficient experience and knowledge to comment
intelligently about the issues. In order for me to be able to reach
and help a number of people on a.r.s., these people need to know that
I have seen and studied the actual Scientology texts, and can help
foster the debate and explain them. This is especially true because it
is not uncommon for the pro-Scientology faction on a.r.s. to claim
that other people's interpretation of Mr. Hubbard's policies are
inaccurate -- even when they are not -- because they fear that the
public will be dissuaded from joining the "church." I am one of the
few people with the knowledge and experience to combat that tactic by
verifying and explaining Hubbard's policies.
25. Second, as somebody who spent many years as a Scientology
minister, I am one of the most knowledgeable contributors to the
a.r.s. newsgroup about Scientology's practices -- and that includes
the Scientologists who participate in the newsgroup. In that position,
I feel I have an additional responsibility to the a.r.s. community to
help facilitate debate on topics chosen by others. As a result,
various people will often post a portion of what they think is
authentic Hubbard material, and ask if I can "authenticate" it. In
fact, there has always been a great deal of discussion on the
newsgroup just about the authenticity of various quotes and writings
attributed to Hubbard. This discussion often becomes the foundation
for debate about important aspects of the Scientology belief system. I
have, in the past, been able to verify for the a.r.s. community
whether an alleged Hubbard work is real or not, which then helps the
participants have a productive discussion about the topic. A good
example of that is when I first saw OT III materials posted. I did not
originally post those documents to the newsgroup, but I did verify --
for the benefit of the a.r.s. community and to further our discussion
and debate -- that they were authentic. A true copy of my posting
reflecting this is attached as Exhibit B. I feel it is important to
let people know that they are debating the authentic works.
Furthermore, as I explained in my deposition, I only obtained the OT
III documents and the vast majority of the other allegedly secret
documents because somebody else had first posted them to the Internet
before me.
26. Third, it is important to utilize Scientology works themselves
because one of the first things a Scientologist is conditioned to
believe is that only Mr. Hubbard's precise words can be used for
teaching Scientology. It is absolutely forbidden for an instructor or
supervisor to provide an "interpretation" of the texts, only Hubbard's
words are allowed to be used. In fact, there are important Scientology
policies on this very point. True and correct copies of two of those
policies are attached as Exhibits C and D respectively. Those policies
explain -- in Hubbard's words -- how instructors cannot actually
explain Hubbard's writings, but can only direct pupils to the
writings. Because part of my mission is to enlighten people who are
already Scientologists, it is a forgone conclusion that they will
ignore anything that is not actually Hubbard's writings. One of the
things I must do in order to reach those people is actually use
Hubbard's words, but juxtapose some of his policies in a way they may
not have seen before. By doing this, I try to highlight the
contradictions and conflicts in Scientology in a way that cannot be
ignored. The result I try to accomplish is to present Scientology's
practices so that they will evoke a response from current
Scientologists, and help them see the hyprocrisy of the "church."
Unfortunately, because of the way Scientologists are conditioned to
reject anything other than Hubbard's words, a mere discussion about
Scientology without quoting Hubbard's words is unpersuasive and
ineffectual.
27. Fourth, and most significantly, if I did not use Mr. Hubbard's own
words in the precise way they were written, I would quickly be accused
by the pro-Scientology faction on a.r.s of twisting Mr. Hubbard's
words, using them out of context or simply making up fake documents.
These tactics are a very common way that the Scientology proponents
deflect criticism of Scientology doctrines and practices and attempt
to silence all critics. By claiming that a critical posting has
misquoted Hubbard or taken his words out of context, the
pro-Scientology faction can (and does) stifle debate on the subject
and interfere with the free exchange of ideas. Because I want to
foster such debate, the only way I can avoid being accused of using
untrustworthy or bogus materials is to actually quote enough of the
underlying works to prove that Mr. Hubbard actually advocated such
outrageous things.
IV. NATURE OF THREADS ON A.R.S.
28. The level activity on a.r.s. is often frenzied and disparate. On
any given day, there can be a number of distinct topics being debated
at the same time (these topics are sometimes called "threads"). For
somebody who is not familiar with the unmoderated nature of newsgroups
generally, and the frenetic pace of a.r.s. in particular, it would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to follow the threads. Because
I have extensive experience with Scientology and with a.r.s., I can
follow the many different debates occurring simultaneously. Often, the
threads touch upon topics for which there are specific Scientology
policies. To animate and elevate the debate, I have, in the past,
posted portions of those directly applicable policies, so the rest of
the group can refer to and make use of them in the debate. Contrary to
what the plaintiffs claim, I do not simply post portions of
Scientology documents for no reason. Instead, my postings are a small,
though relevant, part of an ongoing and much larger debate. My goal in
posting the works has been to provide the true words of Mr. Hubbard
and my comments about his words, so that all interested parties can
carry on the debate in which I participate.
29. A good example of this rather typical pattern can be illustrated
with the a.r.s. discussion about Scientology's method of handling its
critics. This debate was occurring in late August of 1994, when I was
fairly new to the newsgroup. Attached as Exhibits E, F and G are
postings that began the discussion of Scientology's "fair game"
policy, a term of art that refers to the ruthless attacks
Scientologists are taught to make against their critics.
30. Exhibit E reflects a conversation between a Scientologist and me,
where I saw the term "fair game" used for the first time on a.r.s.
Because I feel that policy is particularly relevant for my mission, I
inquired whether the group had discussed the policy yet.
31. Exhibit F reflects a response to that inquiry. As the Court can
see, the response states in part "I think that posting the Fair Game
policy would be a good place to start. Do you happen to have it
available for posting?"
32. Exhibit G reflects my initial response, where I posted a small
portion of the policy, as well as a long letter I had received about a
couple who had been the victims of "fair game." I included that letter
because many low-level Scientologists are told that the "fair game"
policy is no longer in use, but clearly it is.
33. My next postings, attached as Exhibits H and I, and for which I am
being sued, are fuller portions of the "fair game" policy. For
example, Exhibit H explains how a Suppressive Person ("SP") becomes
"fair game." According to Hubbard, an SP: "May be deprived of property
or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." As Mr.
McShane testified, Scientology has officially declared that I am an
SP.
34. As generally happens, those postings sparked even more discussion.
True copies of some of those postings are attached as Exhibits J and
K. Exhibit J reflects a debate between two other people on a.r.s.
about whether "fair game" is still employed. Exhibit K is a
declaration that describes what happened to somebody who was declared
"fair game." Therefore, my postings constitute just a small part of a
larger thread of debate on a particular topic. This group of exhibits
is by no means the relevant thread in its entirety, but offers a
relatively small sample.
35. Finally, the purpose of all of my postings has been to critique
and comment on Scientology practices. I do not ask for, or receive,
any compensation for my work. To the contrary, my work has caused
considerable disruption to my life, including the seizure of my home
and other harassment outside of this litigation.
V. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DOCUMENTS ON A.R.S.
36. As I noted above, I originally obtained the vast majority of the
allegedly secret documents at issue here because somebody else had
posted them to the a.r.s. newsgroup. I have been able to retrieve some
of those original postings to illustrate this point to the Court.
37. Attached as Exhibit L hereto is a true copy of the original
posting of NOTS Issue 1. As the headers on that document reveal, it
was first posted by "nob...@replay.com" on December 24, 1994.
38. Attached as Exhibit M hereto is a true copy of the original
posting of NOTS Issue 34. As the headers on that document reveal, it
was first posted by "nob...@replay.com" on December 24, 1994.
39. Attached as Exhibit N hereto is a true copy of the original
posting of NOTS Issue 35. As the headers on that document reveal, it
was first posted by "nob...@replay.com" on December 24, 1994.
40. Attached as Exhibit 0 hereto is a true copy of the original
posting of NOTS Issue 36. As the headers on that document reveal, it
was first posted by "nob...@replay.com" on December 24, 1994.
41. Attached as Exhibit P hereto is a true copy of the original
posting of NOTS Issue 43. As the headers on that document reveal, it
was first posted by "nob...@replay.com" on December 24, 1994.
42. I have no idea who originally posted these materials.
43. Additionally, I know of, and have even seen, the documents known
as SCAMIZDAT. I am not involved in any way with the creation or
publication of SCAMIZDAT.
44. I did not post the document titled LRH ED 149 INT, BRANCH 5
PROJECT SQUIRREL, as RTC claims.
VI. DECLARATION OF KIM BAKER
45 1 have reviewed the declaration of Kim Baker, filed by RTC in
support of its motion to expand the prelimary injunction. While most
of the declaration does not seem to have anything to do with me, Ms.
Baker states that I was oidained as a minister in some group called
the United Free Zone Fellowship. That is absolutely false.
46. The only other part of Ms. Baker's declaration that mentions me
has to do with somebody who apparently wanted to donate money. I have
no personal knowledge of that incident.
I declare under penalty of perjury undcr the laws of the United States
of America that the foregoing is true and correct,
Executed on November 16, 1995, at Glendale, California.
Rev. Dennis Erlich