My Web Site Crunched
Danny Yee
>The site has been mirrored at http://xenu.tygger.net/fanjet/ .
>
>This message has been crossposted to aus.censorship for obvious reasons,
>and to aus.org.efa. There's a reason it's been crossposted to the latter.
>Would anyone on aus.org.efa like to tell the class what the reason is?
I dunno. The reason we created aus.censorship was partly because
no-one knew what aus.org.efa was, and my guess is that anyone reading
aus.org.efa also reads aus.censorship :-).
But anyone in Australia facing net censorship should get in touch
with EFA - we may be able to help you.
http://www.efa.org.au/
Danny.
Jennifer Cross
yahoo vs France thing?
(France is trying to tell Yahoo USA what they can
make available to french internet users. Sets quite
a precedent for international (blackmail) litigation
on network content!
interested to hear your thoughts
Jennifer
--
Steve Zadarnowski
>On 23 Nov 2000 16:49:47 +1100,
>Danny Yee <da...@thrud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>And if the spurious legal threat from the Scientologists is signed Jeremy
>Malcolm, then what happens?
>
>What is EFA's official position?
Indeedy. And imagine if I didn't already know who was on the
board? This is *serious* shit and has stalled me from getting
advice, for obvious reasons. I have only one path to follow
and that is a complaint to the EFA across all states.
S
---
"If it smells like ass, its Scientology!"
"Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
Chris Owen
<fan...@iinet.com.au> writes
>f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
>
>>On 23 Nov 2000 16:49:47 +1100,
>>Danny Yee <da...@thrud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>Malcolm, then what happens?
>>
>>What is EFA's official position?
>
>Indeedy. And imagine if I didn't already know who was on the
>board? This is *serious* shit and has stalled me from getting
>advice, for obvious reasons. I have only one path to follow
>and that is a complaint to the EFA across all states.
Enlighten me. Who is Jeremy Malcolm?
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Danny Yee
>Danny, what are your/EFA's thoughts on the
>yahoo vs France thing?
A bad precedent, but one sufficiently bad that its badness should
be apparent - expecting anyone publishing content to abide by the
laws of 200 different nation states is just madness.
Interestingly, this kind of thing may only be enforceable against
multinationals who have a presence in the country involved.
(An interesting comparison with the Helms-Burton act in the US,
which allowed sanctions against executives of overseas companies
which traded with Cuba. Obviously "big" countries have an edge here.)
Danny.
Danny Yee
>And if the spurious legal threat from the Scientologists is signed Jeremy
>Malcolm, then what happens?
Hmmm... I just noticed that.
>What is EFA's official position?
Well, Jeremy's definitely not acting on behalf of EFA.
I'll raise the issue with the rest of the board. (BTW, please mail us
- bo...@efa.org.au - rather than assuming we all read news regularly.)
Danny.
Rod Keller
: I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
: member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
: clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
: is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
: lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
: personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
: my position.
Would you act as the instrument of Scientology to destroy somebody using
the legal system? Would you spend millions to collect thousands and force
a critic to bankruptcy? Would you aid a prosecutor in manufacturing a hate
crime? Would you lie to the court, claiming your client was living in fear
of peaceful protestes? Would you lie under penalty of perjury that your
client owns the copyright to a piece of electronics?
This is what we expect of the lawyers Scientology hires. The usual name
for such people is "CLW." Maybe your OSA terminal hasn't hatted you
properly yet.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher / Black Hat #1
Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece / Shelly Thompson in Drag
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Bigot of Mystery / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully / Killer Rod
DeoMorto
who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
fundamentally disagree. >>
What you have said is a great statement. However I do not believe that you
fully understand what you have for a client.
Hubbard has said - and i bvelieve you should ask your contact in the church who
passes on the insturctions for the exact reference - that the purpose of a
lawsuit is to harass and attack. Now. presumably, you support full and open
legal access etc etc. You are going to be asked to conduct campaigns that are
done not because of the legality of the claim but merely to attempt to ruin
someone utterly.
I presume that yours is the letter that was crafted on behalf of scientology to
the ISP in question? Then - presumably - you believe that what you wrote is the
truth and nothing but. Oh dear.
I would suggest, strongly, that you actually investigate the "client" you are
so ethically supporting.
If it is a question of just needing the billing then why not just say so?
ars:- perhaps the most malignant newsgroup on Usenet.!
Dave Bird
>I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
>member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
>clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
>is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
>lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
>personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
>my position.
>
>consultant in private practice who focuses on technology issues
>including those related to Internet communications. One of the clients
>of my legal practice is the Church of Scientology in Perth (although the
>Church uses many lawyers, and work for this particular client composes
>only a very small part of my practice).
>Like doctors and priests, lawyers are ethically obliged to act for those
>who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
>the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
>to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
>than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
>fundamentally disagree.
I am somewhat divided in my opinions on this. It is difficult to
be a member on the board of an anti-(internet)censorship campaign
and then work for one of the worst sources of (internet)censorship.
Having said that, I've been part of civil liberties campaigns which
would help people against scientology when it tried to trample them,
but would help scientology if it were treated unfairly e.g. over
entry visas.
In article<3a2122db...@news.m.iinet.net.au>, Steve Zadarnowski
<fan...@iinet.com.au> writes:
>I've typed up the letter from the Cult Lawyer in Perth,
>Jeremy Malcolm, who has now acted twice against me (or
>rather once against me and once against iiNet to shut me
>down.)
However, in the above I was talking about a THEORETICAL situation:
if this is the cunt who actually issues the censorship notices,
then he should be immediately DISMISSED from the board and all
local media informed why.
>To make it plain, I despise censorship. I am a believer in the right to
>privacy and the right to employ cryptographic means to protect private
>communications from others. I am delighted to act, as I have done so in
>the past and will do so again, for those who wish to defend themselves
>against allegations of defamation, or who wish to defend their right to
>freedom of expression in other ways.
>However, I do not accept that it was unprincipled of me to accept
>instructions to act from the Church of Scientology. On the contrary, it
>would be unprincipled of me to refuse such instructions. I may
>disapprove of the way in which you choose to exercise your legal rights,
>but I will defend to the death your right to exercise them.
>
>A lawyer who "picks and chooses" clients to represent on the basis of
>their beliefs and interests, in effect gives a personal endorsement (or
>disendorsement) to those interests, and becomes identified with them.
>If this occurred throughout the legal profession, any lawyer who acted
>for an unpopular person would incur social censure, with the consequence
>that unpopular people would be unable to obtain legal representation.
>It is true that some lawyers do appear to identify with their clients'
>interests (although mostly on television drama shows); for example, some
>criminal lawyers tend to publically state their belief in the innocence
>of their clients. This is wrong: they should only state, if relevant,
>that they have received instructions to defend the client (it is, after
>all, for the court to decide whether they are guilty).
To what extent does Australia have the English system where
some senior lawyers called "barristers" only spend their time
doing advocacy in the senior courts, while ordinary solicitors
previously couldn't (and currently don't often) go beyond the
preparatory work? Barristers do have a "cab-rank" principle
that they absolutely take what cases they are given, though I
imagine they have informal ways of indicating that they
do/don't like acting for the prosecution etc. AFAIK ordinary
solicitors don't.
Also, acting in what capacity? Most sensible people accept
that even the worst villains deserve a competent defence against
criminal charges, indeed we wouldn't be half as confident that
those found guilty were guilty if we didn't afford best defence.
Again defending someone who is sued, they are in need of a defence.
However, to sue on behalf of an organisation, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THAT ORGANISATION IS A KNOWN ABUSER OF COURT PROCESS and has a policy
of "using lawsuits to harass & bankrupt"... that's a different matter.
People will identify you with that cause. If they are abusers
of process you should, ETHICALLY, ditch them; it is right that
such people can't get lawyers to abuse process for them.
Even in criminal defences, a lawyer should be prepared to believe
his client is innocent. If he KNOWS or has evidence convincing
him the client is definitely guilty he should not, as an officer
of the court, continue to act for that client: that is the
way English law works. He may have heard something he should not,
under privilege; he says "I am obliged not to disclose that
but equally, knowing that, I can no longer act for you."
>
>If anyone runs a perceived risk that my duties towards them will be
>compromised, it is not EFA; it is the Church of Scientology. The Church
>knows of my membership of the EFA board and of APANA (the Australian
>Public Access Network Association, with which it has also been in
>dispute). It has sufficient trust in my professional integrity to know
>that, except in the case of a conflict of interest (in which case I will
>refuse to act), I will set aside my strongly-held personal beliefs when
>exercising my professional duties for my client.
>
>No conflict of interest between the Church of Scientology and EFA exists
>in this case. I will, as a matter of course, absent myself from any
>discussions within the EFA Board (or that of any other organisation I am
>involved with) when matters concerning a client of mine are involved.
>Even apart from my legal ethical responsibilities, it would be
>impossible for me to ensure that a matter would never come before the
>Board in which a conflict with one of my clients arose.
>
>I refuse to tell the world, "I will only act for people whom I like". I
>will act for those whom I don't like. I will act for those whose
>ethical principles are in serious and fundamental conflict with my own.
>In my professional capacity, I am not an advocate for the interests of
>free speech activists (although I am a free speech activist myself). I
>am an advocate for my clients.
>
_____ | | / /
/ \ \ /
-- -| Duck! | \__ ____ /
\_____/ / \ / \ | Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
/| / You \ / | \ \
/ |_\called?/__/ / | |_____________/////////
< |____\_______| | |(______________ ()
\ | \ / () | () | | \\\\\\\\\
\| | __|__ | |
_|___/___ \___ | | TWOING !!!
__---- ----__\---\_
/ __ | ______________________
\____-------------______/ \ / \
/ / / / _/ ---| hmm, it theemth |
/ \ / / / | i thlighly |
/ $ / / | mithtook |
/ / / | your meaning there, |
| | / | buthtah !!! |
\______________// \______________________/
\________/
concerned
You have become a pawn for a corrupt organization. The cult of
Scientology has unclean hands. I'm sorry to hear that you have
chosen to assist the cult in squelching free speech. I believe
you sincerely hold the beliefs and principles as set forth below.
However, I think it would behoove you to become more educated on
the criminal actions your client has engaged in. For starters,
please see http://www.lermanet.com/cos/yanny.html This is the
affidavit of Joseph Yanny, an attorney who details some of the
criminal actions of the Scientology cult.
Scientologists can be (and often are) notorious liars in court.
Their practice of Fair Game encourages and promotes deceit and
trickery towards persons whom Scientology has declared to be an
enemy. There is a wealth of information online which is available
to you regarding Scientology's history of criminal actions.
I wish you and your conscience all the best.
Sincerely,
An anonymous and concerned world citizen.
<posted and mailed>
In article <975250722.978290@localhost>, Jer...@Malcolm.wattle.id.au says...
>
>I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
>member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
>clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
>is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
>lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
>personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
>my position.
>
>For those who came in late, I am a Perth lawyer and technology
>consultant in private practice who focuses on technology issues
>including those related to Internet communications. One of the clients
>of my legal practice is the Church of Scientology in Perth (although the
>Church uses many lawyers, and work for this particular client composes
>only a very small part of my practice).
>
>Like doctors and priests, lawyers are ethically obliged to act for those
>who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
>the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
>to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
>than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
>fundamentally disagree.
>
>To make it plain, I despise censorship. I am a believer in the right to
>privacy and the right to employ cryptographic means to protect private
>communications from others. I am delighted to act, as I have done so in
>the past and will do so again, for those who wish to defend themselves
>against allegations of defamation, or who wish to defend their right to
>freedom of expression in other ways.
>
>However, I do not accept that it was unprincipled of me to accept
>instructions to act from the Church of Scientology. On the contrary, it
>would be unprincipled of me to refuse such instructions. I may
>disapprove of the way in which you choose to exercise your legal rights,
>but I will defend to the death your right to exercise them.
>
>A lawyer who "picks and chooses" clients to represent on the basis of
>their beliefs and interests, in effect gives a personal endorsement (or
>disendorsement) to those interests, and becomes identified with them.
>If this occurred throughout the legal profession, any lawyer who acted
>for an unpopular person would incur social censure, with the consequence
>that unpopular people would be unable to obtain legal representation.
>
>It is true that some lawyers do appear to identify with their clients'
>interests (although mostly on television drama shows); for example, some
>criminal lawyers tend to publically state their belief in the innocence
>of their clients. This is wrong: they should only state, if relevant,
>that they have received instructions to defend the client (it is, after
>all, for the court to decide whether they are guilty).
>
>If anyone runs a perceived risk that my duties towards them will be
>compromised, it is not EFA; it is the Church of Scientology. The Church
>knows of my membership of the EFA board and of APANA (the Australian
>Public Access Network Association, with which it has also been in
>dispute). It has sufficient trust in my professional integrity to know
>that, except in the case of a conflict of interest (in which case I will
>refuse to act), I will set aside my strongly-held personal beliefs when
>exercising my professional duties for my client.
>
>No conflict of interest between the Church of Scientology and EFA exists
>in this case. I will, as a matter of course, absent myself from any
>discussions within the EFA Board (or that of any other organisation I am
>involved with) when matters concerning a client of mine are involved.
>Even apart from my legal ethical responsibilities, it would be
>impossible for me to ensure that a matter would never come before the
>Board in which a conflict with one of my clients arose.
>
>I refuse to tell the world, "I will only act for people whom I like". I
>will act for those whom I don't like. I will act for those whose
>ethical principles are in serious and fundamental conflict with my own.
>In my professional capacity, I am not an advocate for the interests of
>free speech activists (although I am a free speech activist myself). I
>am an advocate for my clients.
>
>--
>Independent consulting solicitor* | _ .__ ._ _ |\/| _.| _ _ |._ _
>and technology consultant.** \_|(/_|(/_| | |\/ | |(_||(_(_)|| | |
>Personal site: http://malcolm.wattle.id.au / Finger for GPG key
>* http://www.ilaw.com.au ** http://www.terminus.net.au j...@ilaw.com.au
mimus
>I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
>member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
>clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
>is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
>lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
>personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
>my position.
>
>For those who came in late, I am a Perth lawyer and technology
>consultant in private practice who focuses on technology issues
>including those related to Internet communications. One of the clients
>of my legal practice is the Church of Scientology in Perth (although the
>Church uses many lawyers, and work for this particular client composes
>only a very small part of my practice).
>
>Like doctors and priests, lawyers are ethically obliged to act for those
>who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
>the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
>to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
>than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
>fundamentally disagree.
What about a client that by policy not only practices regular legal
intimidation by threat of but actually wages barratrous assaults
against critics and governments?
And here's a legal conundrum for you: Does copyright inhere in
instruments of fraud, racketeering and subversion?
>Independent consulting solicitor* | _ .__ ._ _ |\/| _.| _ _ |._ _
>and technology consultant.** \_|(/_|(/_| | |\/ | |(_||(_(_)|| | |
>Personal site: http://malcolm.wattle.id.au / Finger for GPG key
>* http://www.ilaw.com.au ** http://www.terminus.net.au j...@ilaw.com.au
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
Terra Xenu
Hartley Patterson
> I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
> member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
> clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth.
I'm surprised the CoS is hiring a lawyer with ethical principles, it's
not their usual practise!
The only advice I'd give is:
1) Don't let them run up large bills. The CoS follows a guru who left a
string of bankrupt companies behind him.
2) Don't give them anything they can use to ruin you should they take a
dislike to you. Should that happen, the switch will be very fast - one
minute you will be their friend, the next an agent of the worldwide
conspiracy to destroy Scientology.
3) If they try to use your reputation to whitewash themselves, tell them
to desist at once. The CoS has a record of falsely claiming that all
manner of people support them: the Norwegian Defence Minister, the
Swedish royal family, British MEPs, it's a long list.
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and how to outrun
Thread. PGP ID: 0xC27CDDDC
ptsc
>I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
>member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
>clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
>is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
>lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
>personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
>my position.
Yes, we know they pay well, even though you are required to make complaints so
frivolous as to be sanctionable were they to occur in America. One hopes that
the courts of Australia have similar provisions for frivolous litigation.
It would also probably resolve the conflict of interest if you were to resign
from a group that stands for freedom of speech while you are directly opposing
freedom of speech and helping a criminal organization hide its criminal conduct
by silencing its critics.
ptsc
Jer...@malcolm.wattle.id.au
member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
my position.
For those who came in late, I am a Perth lawyer and technology
consultant in private practice who focuses on technology issues
including those related to Internet communications. One of the clients
of my legal practice is the Church of Scientology in Perth (although the
Church uses many lawyers, and work for this particular client composes
only a very small part of my practice).
Like doctors and priests, lawyers are ethically obliged to act for those
who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
fundamentally disagree.
To make it plain, I despise censorship. I am a believer in the right to
--
Frank Copeland
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:09:13 +0000, Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a1d29e2...@news.m.iinet.net.au>, Steve Zadarnowski
><fan...@iinet.com.au> writes
>>f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
>>>Danny Yee <da...@thrud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>>:But anyone in Australia facing net censorship should get in touch
>>>:with EFA - we may be able to help you.
>>>: http://www.efa.org.au/
>>>And if the spurious legal threat from the Scientologists is signed Jeremy
>>>Malcolm, then what happens?
>>>
>>>What is EFA's official position?
>>Indeedy. And imagine if I didn't already know who was on the
>>board? This is *serious* shit and has stalled me from getting
>>advice, for obvious reasons. I have only one path to follow
>>and that is a complaint to the EFA across all states.
>
>Enlighten me. Who is Jeremy Malcolm?
That's a very interesting question, and I'm still not sure I know the
real answer.
Jeremy Malcolm is the editor of Ibn Qirtaiba, the newsletter of the SF
Sig of Australian Mensa. Issue 16 included a review of Battlefield
Earth along with a photo of Hubbard. Jeremy got a 'ho note about the
photo. See <http://sf.sig.au.mensa.org/iq-16.html>, but there's more on
the issue below.
Jeremy Malcolm is a member of the Management Committee of APANA
<http://www.apana.org.au/>. The Management Committee has had to deal
with several complaints and legal threats from $cientology about web
pages hosted on my server thingy.apana.org.au by both myself and David
Gerard. See <http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/> and
<http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/>.
Jeremy Malcolm is a member of the board of Electronic Frontiers
Australia <http://www.efa.org/>. EFA promotes itself as a defender of
online rights in Australia.
Jeremy Malcolm is a solicitor who is currently working for $cientology.
On their behalf he caused Steve Zadarnowski's web site at
<http://www.iinet.com.au/~fanjet/> to be (hopefully temporarily) taken
down by threatening his ISP with a MacLibel-style defamation action.
Jeremy apparently has no problem with being all these things at once.
Issue 16 of Ibn Qirtaiba has an interesting history. In its original
form it included a photo of Elron which was apparently copyrighted by
$cientology. When they complained about it the page was modified to use
a different photo which they had no rights to, and the image was linked
to Operation Clambake at <http://www.xenu.net/>. But if you look at the
page today you will see the link has been removed and an editorial note
added about the infamous Hubbard quote about getting rich by starting a
religion. Fortunately the second version is still available. Thanks to
Google and the National Library of Australia, you can still see it at
<http://pandora.nla.gov.au/parchive/2000/Z2000-May-2/sf.sig.au.mensa.org/iq-16.html>.
The current page was last modified on August 26.
Frank
- --
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/>
Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOiHSu4BOXdsElwbdAQHl2QP+IRjMRnH55gxhBSbno/MtR5Zfz1GG8BMz
A2IAdr29IEr0XAVRGRQ31qShEIFgtWZQRQgA8Ucm83oFtDjZ7AvAwVMS/F+onl4F
o6BUi9j4uf6WyMWfO1sq3YS6Ch/prJCh6WIzpM+0YUJ6anKbrRd6U8EtQoglOzv7
CcJvobDUu6s=
=HDNV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DavidR
ptsc <pt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:52432tk0budncq065...@4ax.com...
> >member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
> >clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
> >is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
> >lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
> >personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
> >my position.
>
complaints so
> frivolous as to be sanctionable were they to occur in America. One hopes
that
> the courts of Australia have similar provisions for frivolous litigation.
>
> It would also probably resolve the conflict of interest if you were to
resign
> from a group that stands for freedom of speech while you are directly
opposing
> freedom of speech and helping a criminal organization hide its criminal
conduct
> by silencing its critics.
>
on the efa board as well. They might even make room for brian harradine and
paulene hanson :)
DavidR
Nick S
..snipt the first part of the self-serving rhetoric..
>Like doctors and priests, lawyers are ethically obliged to act for those
>who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
>the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
>to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
>than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
>fundamentally disagree.
Am I the only one to find this comparison a 'bit on the
nose' ?
A black doctor using his skills to save a dying 'KKK member
on the operating table' somehow is the same as some cheap
whore lawyer doing a deal with an internationally convicted
criminal organisation, saying "Yeah, no wucking furries,
I'll have your money, spends good to me ! "
This is being 'called upon ?' This is the Lawyers'
Hypocritic Oath ?
Like, it doesn't matter to you that you're representing THE
world-reknowned 'serial litigator' ?
The One which has systematically - for 50 years now - sought
out, found, and subsequently employed, those weakest and
greediest members of the legal profession who were prepared
to endorse the L Ron Hubbard prime directive as regards the
legal system - to 'ruin and utterly destroy if possible'
those who would dare oppose Scientology.
You've been bought and paid for, Jeremy. Quit your posturing
and posing, please.
May you live long enough to rue this day as your lowest.
>However, I do not accept that it was unprincipled of me to accept
>instructions to act from the Church of Scientology. On the contrary, it
>would be unprincipled of me to refuse such instructions. I may
>disapprove of the way in which you choose to exercise your legal rights,
>but I will defend to the death your right to exercise them.
God ! Just how many plastic heroes can do this 'Defend to
the death' crap ? Not that the sentiment isn't noble, it's
just that everyone who quotes it lately seems to be as cheap
and low-hanging as a Co$ lawyer or spokesman.
>A lawyer who "picks and chooses" clients to represent on the basis of
>their beliefs and interests, in effect gives a personal endorsement (or
>disendorsement) to those interests, and becomes identified with them.
Well, you've done that Jeremy! LRH was a wanker of cosmic
proportions (see Crowley, Parsons et al for the details.)
>If anyone runs a perceived risk that my duties towards them will be
>compromised, it is not EFA; it is the Church of Scientology. The Church
>knows of my membership of the EFA board and of APANA (the Australian
>Public Access Network Association, with which it has also been in
>dispute).
So sweetie, you're not just *anybody's* cheap plaything
anymore :)
No more will you be used and abused by those fickle bastards
in the EFA and APANA who now see you as just a tart, eh ?
Now you've got yourself a nice sugar daddy with lots of
money to spend on you.
Hell, all you have to do is fake it :)
>It has sufficient trust in my professional integrity
Yeah, right.
>I refuse to tell the world, "I will only act for people whom I like". I
>will act for those whom I don't like.
Oh get real you cheap tart ! You're 'acting' for pay, not
principle. Just who do you think you're kidding ?
NS
ptsc
>A black doctor using his skills to save a dying 'KKK member
>on the operating table' somehow is the same as some cheap
>whore lawyer doing a deal with an internationally convicted
>criminal organisation, saying "Yeah, no wucking furries,
>I'll have your money, spends good to me ! "
To extend this rhetoric to the legal profession at question, when a black or
Jewish lawyer defends the right of the Klan or Nazis to march publicly and
express their free speech rights, despite the repugnance he personally has for
their message, those lawyers are performing a noble and often derided purpose.
However, this is an entirely different matter, of a CLW selling his services for
top dollar to a billionaire criminal organization in order to SILENCE the free
speech rights of its critics. There is not only no comparison, but the attempt
at a comparison is a slap in the face to those principled lawyers who actually
defend free speech rights instead of attacking them.
ptsc
DavidR
Frank Copeland <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn923ko...@wossname.apana.org.au...
1. Is this EFA aware of this situation?
2. If so, what is the EFA's stance in reguard to the conflict of interest
between free speech and censorship in this instance.
3. Is this situation being ignored in the hope that it will be quickly
solved by bully boy tactics and nobody will remember it in a week or two?
DavidR
Nick Andrew
>>Like doctors and priests, lawyers are ethically obliged to act for those
>>who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
>>the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
>>to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
>>than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
>>fundamentally disagree.
Nevertheless, a lawyer is an agent of the court, and should not stoop
to the low principles of the client. Your letter to Steve Zadarnowski
appeared to be a standard $cientology "crush all criticism" demand,
containing some claims of dubious legal worth, even authenticity
(noting some of the claims I have read on a.r.s. that Co$ doesn't own
certain materials they claim to, or doesn't have the protection they
claim either). I would think that barratrous conduct is not in the
long-term best interest of your client, nor making false claims.
Nick.
--
Pacific Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9247-4738 Voice: 03-9674-7543
http://www.zeta.org.au/~nick/
"Sorry to say this, but the job falls to the ultimate defenders
of liberty - you and me." [Keith Henson, 2000-06-29]
Dave Bird
<n...@for.mail> writes:
>Jer...@Malcolm.wattle.id.au wrote:
>
>..snipt the first part of the self-serving rhetoric..
>
>>who call upon them to do so. They do not thereby take upon themselves
>>the attitudes or interests of their clients. Does a black doctor refuse
>>to save a member of the Ku Klux Klan on his operating table? No more so
>>than I would refuse to act for a client with whose principles I
>>fundamentally disagree.
>
>nose' ?
>
>on the operating table' somehow is the same
Surely, if he is ATTACKING people for the criminal cult, his position
is more like that of a black hit-man who is happy to gun down a civil
rights activist for the KKK, on the grounds their money is as good as
anyone else's?
Danny Yee
>1. Is this EFA aware of this situation?
Yes.
>2. If so, what is the EFA's stance in reguard to the conflict of interest
>between free speech and censorship in this instance.
We're discussing the issue at the moment.
>3. Is this situation being ignored in the hope that it will be quickly
>solved by bully boy tactics and nobody will remember it in a week or two?
No.
Danny.
Dave Bird
ud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au> writes:
>DavidR <drea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>1. Is this EFA aware of this situation?
>
>Yes.
>
>>2. If so, what is the EFA's stance in reguard to the conflict of interest
>>between free speech and censorship in this instance.
>
>We're discussing the issue at the moment.
Good. Please provide email, phone/fax, and postal contacts
for external input to the discussion.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Danny Yee
>>>between free speech and censorship in this instance.
>>We're discussing the issue at the moment.
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Good. Please provide email, phone/fax, and postal contacts
> for external input to the discussion.
EFA contact details are on our web site, http://www.efa.org.au.
Danny.
DavidR
Danny Yee <da...@thrud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:907k8f$3gu$1...@thrud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au...
So steve, what is the current situation?
DavidR
Steve Zadarnowski
I'm not sure. I'm currently dealing with a restraining order
hearing brought by our friendly local Scientologists and this
will be next in line for my full attention.
I believe the EFA are currently applying their attention to the
issues involved.
DavidR
Steve Zadarnowski <fan...@iinet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a29242a...@news.m.iinet.net.au...
> hearing brought by our friendly local Scientologists and this
> will be next in line for my full attention.
>
> I believe the EFA are currently applying their attention to the
> issues involved.
>
Have you seen this site? http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/idx_coskit.html
It's labeled Sources to defend oneself with when sued by Scientology.
Unfortunately it is Dutch rather than Australian, but it shows a few of
their tricks.
You also might want to take a glance at
http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR980125.html .
Remember "Mr Rodriguez himself said, "EFA is respected around the world for
its active stand against censorship and injustice on the Internet. It is
exciting to join forces with EFA to work on these issues.""
DavidR
Julian Assange
> However, I do not accept that it was unprincipled of me to accept
> instructions to act from the Church of Scientology. On the contrary, it
> would be unprincipled of me to refuse such instructions. I may
> disapprove of the way in which you choose to exercise your legal rights,
> but I will defend to the death your right to exercise them.
>
> A lawyer who "picks and chooses" clients to represent on the basis of
> their beliefs and interests, in effect gives a personal endorsement (or
> disendorsement) to those interests, and becomes identified with them.
> If this occurred throughout the legal profession, any lawyer who acted
> for an unpopular person would incur social censure, with the consequence
> that unpopular people would be unable to obtain legal representation.
Oh come now. I presume you `pick and choose' clients who are able to
pay, consequently excluding those people who need help the most.
The Church of Scientology is not an individual, isolated and oppressed
by the machinery of the state. Rather, it is a wealthy corporate that
attempts to legally oppress and harass individuals. You are
mis-applying the ethic. Next you will be telling me that it's immoral
for any defence lawyer to choose not to work for the prosecution or
for a personal injuries lawyer to refuse to work for tobacco
companies and indeed any pro-bono work whatsoever.
Julian.
ptsc
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:11:23 GMT, n...@for.mail (Nick S) wrote:
>A black doctor using his skills to save a dying 'KKK member
>on the operating table' somehow is the same as some cheap
>whore lawyer doing a deal with an internationally convicted
>criminal organisation, saying "Yeah, no wucking furries,
>I'll have your money, spends good to me ! "
To extend this rhetoric to the legal profession at question, when a black or
Jewish lawyer defends the right of the Klan or Nazis to march publicly and
express their free speech rights, despite the repugnance he personally has for
their message, those lawyers are performing a noble and often derided purpose.
However, this is an entirely different matter, of a CLW selling his services for
top dollar to a billionaire criminal organization in order to SILENCE the free
speech rights of its critics. There is not only no comparison, but the attempt
at a comparison is a slap in the face to those principled lawyers who actually
defend free speech rights instead of attacking them.
ptsc
--Rogue Cancel data
Original From: ptsc <pt...@my-deja.com>
Original Subject: Re: My Web Site Crunched
Cancel From: Aussie Renegade <aussier...@aol.com>
Cancel Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:33:56 GMT
Cancel Message-ID: <bcj78db5b1lg185...@4ax.com>
Cancel Newsgroups: alt.test,ak.test,biz.test,3dfx.test
Cancel Control: cancel <ijva2tgvivekpkilf...@4ax.com>
ptsc
On 26 Nov 2000 14:53:25 GMT, Jer...@Malcolm.wattle.id.au wrote:
>I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
>member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
>clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
>is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
>lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
>personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
>my position.
Yes, we know they pay well, even though you are required to make complaints so
frivolous as to be sanctionable were they to occur in America. One hopes that
the courts of Australia have similar provisions for frivolous litigation.
It would also probably resolve the conflict of interest if you were to resign
from a group that stands for freedom of speech while you are directly opposing
freedom of speech and helping a criminal organization hide its criminal conduct
by silencing its critics.
ptsc
--Rogue Cancel data
Original From: ptsc <pt...@my-deja.com>
Original Subject: Re: My Web Site Crunched
Cancel From: Aussie Renegade <aussier...@aol.com>
Cancel Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:36:03 GMT
Cancel Message-ID: <baq11rb8i7ow366...@4ax.com>
Cancel Newsgroups: alt.test,ak.test,biz.test,3dfx.test
Cancel Control: cancel <52432tk0budncq065...@4ax.com>
DavidR
ptsc wrote in message ...
>[Reposted due to rogue cancel.]
>
>On 26 Nov 2000 14:53:25 GMT, Jer...@Malcolm.wattle.id.au wrote:
>
>>I regret that Electronic Frontiers Australia, of which I am a board
>>member, has come under criticism on account of the fact that one of my
>>clients is the Church of Scientology in Perth. However, this criticism
>>is misguided and stems from a lack of understanding of the role of a
>>lawyer and his ethical responsibilities. I write this response in my
>>personal capacity and not as a representative of EFA in order to explain
>>my position.
>
>Yes, we know they pay well, even though you are required to make complaints
so
>frivolous as to be sanctionable were they to occur in America. One hopes
that
>the courts of Australia have similar provisions for frivolous litigation.
>
>It would also probably resolve the conflict of interest if you were to
resign
>from a group that stands for freedom of speech while you are directly
opposing
>freedom of speech and helping a criminal organization hide its criminal
conduct
>by silencing its critics.
>
Ah well, I suppose the government should think about hiring this lawyer to
represent them the next time new internet restrictions are proposed. The
silence is deafening.
DavidR