Cult threatening to sue Wikileaks

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 4:12:32 PM4/6/08
to
From the Horse's mouth
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_T
hetan_documents


To: Le...@sunshinepress.org
Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
From: ampaq...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:22 +0000 (GMT)
Dear Legal:

Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of
the confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and
the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the
Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology materials are
unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others,
the individual works comprising levels known as "NOTs," "OT II," and
"OT III." These works are registered with the United States Copyright
Office under registration numbers TXu 257 326 and 257 527, TXu 303 388,
and TXu 290 496.

Someone has placed RTC's Advanced Technology works on Wikileaks.org's
website without the authorization of our client. These infringements
can be found under the following URLs:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_Theta
n_documents

http://wikileaks.org/leak/scientology-ot-levels.pdf

Please be advised that your customer's action in this regard violates
United States copyright law. Accordingly, we ask for your help in
removing these works immediately from your service.

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, it is unlawful to
reproduce or distribute someone else's copyrighted work without that
person's authorization. See, BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888
(7th Cir. 2005) (acknowledging that posting copyright materials on
the Internet constitutes copyright infringement citing In re Aimster
Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003).

Indeed, courts have entered numerous permanent injunctions and awarded
statutory damages and attorneys' fees regarding infringement of these
and similar works. For instance, a jury in the United States District
Court in San Jose, California awarded RTC $75,000 in statutory damages,
and statutory attorney's fees and a permanent injunction were imposed
against a Mr. Henson for posting one of the NOTs works on the Internet.
A Virginia United States District Court granted RTC judgment for damages,
costs, and a permanent injunction related to similar wholesale copyright
infringement, in addition to permanent injunctions that were entered in
another three copyright cases related to similar infringements in the
United States.

Likewise, a Swedish court enjoined a defendant who engaged in
infringements of these same Advanced Technology works, in addition to
finding that his actions in placing those works on the Internet violated
our client's rights under Swedish copyright law. RTC v. Panoussis,
Judgment of the Stockholm District, Division 7, case T-7-886-96. He was
also fined for his illegal actions and ordered to pay litigation costs.
The decision by Stockholm District Court was upheld on appeal.

We also ask that you preserve any and all documents pertaining to this
matter and this customer, including, but not limited to, logs, data
entry sheets, applications -- electronic or otherwise, registrations
forms, billings statements or invoices, computer print-outs, disks,
hard drives, etc.

I have a good faith belief, and in fact know for certain, that posting
copies of these works through your system was not authorized by my
client,
any agent of my client, or the law.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is accurate
and that I am authorized to act on behalf of RTC in this matter.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.


Sincerely,
Ava Paquette
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213) 487-4468
Fax: (213) 487-5385

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom N

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 5:23:43 PM4/6/08
to
On Apr 6, 1:12 pm, Scientology is a cult <Y...@ema.yil> wrote:
> From the Horse's mouthhttp://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operati...

> hetan_documents
>
> To: Le...@sunshinepress.org
> Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
> From: ampaque...@aol.com

> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:22 +0000 (GMT)
> Dear Legal:
>
> Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of
> the confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and
> the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the
> Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology materials are
> unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others,
> the individual works comprising levels known as "NOTs," "OT II," and
> "OT III." These works are registered with the United States Copyright
> Office under registration numbers TXu 257 326 and 257 527, TXu 303 388,
> and TXu 290 496.
>
> Someone has placed RTC's Advanced Technology works on Wikileaks.org's
> website without the authorization of our client. These infringements
> can be found under the following URLs:
>
> http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_T...

I hope the Church of Scientology sues their ass off. And wins.

Then THEY will go after the people who are really responsible
for that material being there...

:-)

Tom Newton


barb

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 7:26:49 PM4/6/08
to

Avagram! They got an Avagram!
I haz got Avagram too. You're nobody til Ava lubz you!

--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!

“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”

--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 6:41:41 PM4/6/08
to
barb <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in news:X_cKj.64392$y05.62430
@newsfe22.lga:

>> tl;dr: I SUCK COCKS


>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Ava Paquette
>> Moxon & Kobrin
>> 3055 Wilshire Boulevard
>> Suite 900
>> Los Angeles, California 90010
>> Tel: (213) 487-4468
>> Fax: (213) 487-5385
>>
>>
>>
>
> Avagram! They got an Avagram!
> I haz got Avagram too. You're nobody til Ava lubz you!

pix or it dun't happenz!!!


From wikinews.org


Monday, April 7, 2008

Wikinews has learned that The Church of Scientology has warned the
documents leaking site Wikileaks.org that they are in violation of United
States copyright laws after they published several documents related to
the Church. Wikileaks has no intentions of complying, and states that in
response, they intend to publish thousands of Scientology documents next
week.

In the letter to Wikileaks, lawyers for the Church's Religious Technology
Center (RTC), which oversees the use of the their logos, writings and
religious content, states that the site "placed RTC's Advanced Technology
works on Wikileaks.org's website without the authorization" of the
Church.

"I have a good faith belief, and in fact know for certain, that posting
copies of these works through your system was not authorized by my

client, any agent of my client, or the law. Please be advised that your

customer's action in this regard violates United States copyright law.
Accordingly, we ask for your help in removing these works immediately

from your service," states the letter from Ava Paquette of Moxon & Kobrin
which was published by Wikileaks.

On March 9, 2008, Wikileaks published several documents relating to the
Church's Office of Special Affairs and personal notes gathered by Frank
Oliver, a former Scientologist and former member of the Church's Special
Affairs office. On March 26, 2008, Wikileaks published the entire set of
the Churches 'Operating Thetan Level' documents which included
handwritten notes by Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard.

Although the letter does not mention specific legal threats against
Wikileaks, the letter asks that they "preserve any and all documents

pertaining to this matter and this customer, including, but not limited
to, logs, data entry sheets, applications -- electronic or otherwise,
registrations forms, billings statements or invoices, computer print-
outs, disks, hard drives, etc."

Despite the letter, Wikileaks states they will not to comply with the
"abusive request" by the Church.

"Wikileaks will not comply with legally abusive requests from Scientology
any more than Wikileaks has complied with similar demands from Swiss
banks, Russian off-shore stem cell centers, former African Kleptocrats,
or the Pentagon. Wikileaks will remain a place where people of the world
may safely expose injustice and corruption," stated Wikileaks in a
statement on their website.

Wikileaks further states that "in response to the attempted suppression,
Wikileaks will release several thousand pages of Scientology material
next week."

SaveXenu

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 10:31:59 PM4/6/08
to
wow can they make any bigger of an ass of themselves?

anothers...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 10:40:33 PM4/6/08
to
On Apr 6, 7:31 pm, SaveXenu <savex...@live.ca> wrote:
> wow can they make any bigger of an ass of themselves?

Yeah... "Xenu? Never heard of him." (Various and many scientology
spokesfolk.)

But post the sekrit scientology genesis doctrine regarding Xenu the
Warlord from another galAXy that finally (after hundreds of thousands
of dollars) is revealed at OT III and "Hey, wade a minnit, that's
COPYRIGHTED material belonging to scientology!"

"The Advanced Technology materials are unpublished, copyrighted
works. RTC's works include, among others, the individual works
comprising levels known as "NOTs," "OT II," and "OT III." These works
are registered with the United States Copyright Office under
registration numbers TXu 257 326 and 257 527, TXu 303 388, and TXu 290
496.

Someone has placed RTC's Advanced Technology works on Wikileaks.org's
website without the authorization of our client."

Pffft.

How can they have it both ways?

Well, what am I saying... lol they ALWAYS have it both ways. They are
a science. No, a religion. Wait -- an applied technology! A dessert
topping, a floor wax and a breath mint...

Sorry, in a snarky mood tonight.

Another Surfer

Fear Not

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 10:59:50 PM4/6/08
to
Wikinews has learned that The Church of Scientology has warned the
> documents leaking site Wikileaks.org that they are in violation of United
> States copyright laws after they published several documents related to
> the Church. Wikileaks has no intentions of complying, and states that in
> response, they intend to publish thousands of Scientology documents next
> week.


Dear Old Ava,
Please tell David the Internet said NO!
Thanks for stopping by.

peters...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 11:43:25 PM4/6/08
to
On 6 apr, 22:12, Scientology is a cult <Y...@ema.yil> wrote:
> From the Horse's mouthhttp://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operati...

> hetan_documents
>
> To: Le...@sunshinepress.org
> Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
> From: ampaque...@aol.com

> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:22 +0000 (GMT)
> Dear Legal:
>
> Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of
> the confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and
> the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the
> Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology materials are
> unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others,
> the individual works comprising levels known as "NOTs," "OT II," and
> "OT III." These works are registered with the United States Copyright
> Office under registration numbers TXu 257 326 and 257 527, TXu 303 388,
> and TXu 290 496.
>
> Someone has placed RTC's Advanced Technology works on Wikileaks.org's
> website without the authorization of our client. These infringements
> can be found under the following URLs:
>
> http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_T...

Thank you Ava for the link. I downloaded the link now. :-)

Peter

http://www.scamofscientology.nl

Anonology

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:11:44 AM4/7/08
to
On Apr 6, 4:12 pm, Scientology is a cult <Y...@ema.yil> wrote:

> To: Le...@sunshinepress.org                                    
> Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials              

> From: ampaque...@aol.com                                        


> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:22 +0000 (GMT)
> Dear Legal:
>

>....  The Advanced Technology materials are
> unpublished, copyrighted works.  

How can they say they're unpublished? They've been published on the
web on numerous occasions.

Fredric L. Rice

unread,
Apr 6, 2008, 12:20:55 PM4/6/08
to
Scientology is a cult <Yo...@ema.yil> wrote:

>From: ampaq...@aol.com

Good grief. That insane criminal is still alive? I had thought that
David Miscaviage would have gutted her with a dull knife and burried
her out at Hemet long ago.

---
George W. Bush is a Christian. Time to get over it.

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:05:43 AM4/7/08
to
FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:OuydnYXr4eLyPGTanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@sonicnet:

> Scientology is a cult <Yo...@ema.yil> wrote:
>
>>From: ampaq...@aol.com
>
> Good grief. That insane criminal is still alive? I had thought that
> David Miscaviage would have gutted her with a dull knife and burried
> her out at Hemet long ago.


Remember now - anyone can send an email.

feministe

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 2:47:19 AM4/7/08
to
This is what I answer to the Sclam atty:
==

Dear Ms Paquette,


It seems that you wrote a mail to wikileaks.org so as to threten them if
they don't erase the documents of your cult.

Well, I recommande you to desist on this, since I've these same documents,
and I consider them since ùore than 25 years now to be fraudulous.

Since your criminal leader Miscavige is still trying to silence those
disclosing these "secrets", I consider your cult is still fraudulously
selling these bits of crookery, and I intend to sue you before courts for
fraud and extortion regarding these.

So, you'd better cease and desist yourself if you don't want to aggravate
the insane situation where your main leaders and PR Officers have put your
criminal cult.

Regards,


Roger Gonnet

France


Eldon

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 3:33:18 AM4/7/08
to

You'd think they would have learned just to shut up by now, wouldn't
you? Every time they whine, it only leads more people to download the
sekrit skriptures.

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 3:41:39 AM4/7/08
to
Hmm,

I hope they get a large firm to defend them pro bono.

Most religions share their knowledge.

Hubbard's scriptures are the problem, particularly this one where he
says:

8 Jan 1981, ADVANCE COURSE REGULATIONS AND SECURITY,
"...21. NO UNAUTHORIZED COPIES OF THE UPPER LEVEL MATERIALS ARE TO BE
MADE.

"This means NO notes, NO photocopies, NO 'little simplifications', NO
little codes to keep handy. None of the materials are to be in any
way copied, not even partially or in alterised form....."

"L. Ron Hubbard"


History is the precedent for releasing publicly ALL of Hubbard's
ideas.

All great thinkers have their full lineup of writings and thoughts
published and available freely in books in libraries, at least.

Hubbard gives really bad reasons for keeping some of his material
confidential, and today the Scientology hired lawyers are ordered and
paid to take the legal route of protecting his extremist views about
his no longer confidential scriptures.

This is the disgraceful Scientology/Hubbard extremism that people
detest Scientology for.

Again, the model to compare against, is the freezone which do NOT go
maddog nor maddog legal regarding the leaking of the no longer
"confidential" material.

I think of two defenses in court:

1)
a) first demonstrate in court that the freezone are legitimate
Scientologists, just as legitimate as regular Scientologists. b)
demonstrate that freezone scientologists don't have ANY of the
problems that Hubbard said they would have with people who expose
themselves to the confidential materials, and actually the freezone
does all sorts of moderate sensible behavior, contrasted to official
Scientology's extremist following of Hubbard's most extremist harsh
unchallengable rules, and c) demonstrate how widely these
"confidential" materials are actually spread, and that the core
significance of these "confidential" materials are actually leaked
left right and center for decades all over the public domain, and the
theology of Scientology that Hubbard was so sensitive NOT to let leak,
that this core theology of body thetans is OUT, it's leaked, it's a no
situation.

2) regular religions don't hide their theology, and "body thetans" is
rock bottom theology. And how Xenu fits in, well Xenu's just the guy
who caused the "body thetans" surplus, and it's the surplus "body
thetans" that are still roaming around since there still isn't enough
bodies to go around for all the "body thetans." On top of this,
ALL of the lower grades detailed practices are available. On top of
this, one could show in court, with the help of PLENTY of freezone and
ex official Scientologists just how even MORE dramatically a "case"
can be "damaged" by the "out-lists" phenomenon (for example). In
otherwords just show that OTHER misapplication of printed published
public domain Hubbard "tech" scriptures procedures can cause
"sickness" and "bad" reactions. I'll bet there are plenty of freezone
auditors and C/Ses who might be willing to testify their experiences
in NOT finding Hubbard's cautions about the "confidential" materials
to be valid!

In my 27 years in the Sea Org, I never saw anyone getting even
slightly "messed up" by being exposed to the OT 3 and other no longer
confidential materials.

I think the major problem with official Scientology is they are forced
to trip themselves up with Hubbard's rules that are out of date or
irrational.

In contrast, ex official Scientologists do NOT trip themselves up nor
bash themselves up with Hubbard's irrational rules!

None of the ex Sea Org members I've met since leaving, who read all
the confidential material on the internet have been bothered in the
least!

Hubbard's dead, he's not here to change his rules.

But we at least have the freezone people as examples of Hubbardites
who DON'T apply the full repertoire of Hubbard's extremist rules, and
the freezone Scientologists are at least proof of Hubbard being wrong
on numbers of things, including this "confidential" rule about the
Xenu and body thetans theology!

Another legal defense tactic, longer range, would be if a new
religious movement scholar could do a nice long detailed paper on
Scientology's "confidential" materials controversies over the years,
like the history of the controversy. All detailed with copies or
liberal quotes from all the confidential Hubbard issues, each verified
by actual OT Scientologists and ex Scientologists, and get the paper
published.

Then have the publisher face off in court with Scientology, and just
end this legal charade game that the Scientology lawyers are getting
away making their pay supporting Hubbard's wrong extremist opinions
about the "harm" that this "confidential" scriptures causes!

It seems ludicrous that now with body thetans and Xenu being household
words, and with most of Hollywood non Scientologist industry people
knowing MORE about mankind's "body thetans" predicament than the
average Scientologist, I mean the truth is that non Scientologists
know more about Scientology's theology than the average official
Scientologist!

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me anytime!)
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://tinyurl.com/2fqfyu (NOTs Series 1, GREAT info on Hubbard's
"body thetans" theology! MUST READ)

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 2:52:45 AM4/7/08
to
Eldon <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote in news:62b8c333-6d5d-49cd-99e7-
97f4c9...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

BTW, it's now on the front page of digg.

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 2:54:22 AM4/7/08
to
"chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote in news:767c8b23-
9ef1-49be-bfc...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> Hmm,
>
> I hope they get a large firm to defend them pro bono.
>
> Most religions share their knowledge.
>
> Hubbard's scriptures are the problem, particularly this one where he
> says:
>
> 8 Jan 1981, ADVANCE COURSE REGULATIONS AND SECURITY,
> "...21. NO UNAUTHORIZED COPIES OF THE UPPER LEVEL MATERIALS ARE TO BE
> MADE.
>
> "This means NO notes, NO photocopies, NO 'little simplifications', NO
> little codes to keep handy. None of the materials are to be in any
> way copied, not even partially or in alterised form....."
>
> "L. Ron Hubbard"

It's true, LRH did say that. You can even read it yourself on
wikileaks.org if you don't believe it.

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 8:43:32 AM4/7/08
to
anothers...@hotmail.com:

> Yeah... "Xenu? Never heard of him." (Various and many scientology
> spokesfolk.)

> How can they have it both ways?

That's Ms Paquette's standard Cut & Paste text, everyone gets it
applicable or not. I'm sure Keith and Zenon feel a warm glow every time
they see it!

No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by Warren
McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'. It's one page out of a
longer work, itself just one course out of many.

It sticks out because it's different. Anyone gone away from a lecture
remembering the joke the speaker made and not the rest? In a way I feel
sorry for Scientology, that one passage having so distracted both
outsiders and members from what scientology is really all about.

--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 9:03:13 AM4/7/08
to
chuckb...@aol.com:

> a) first demonstrate in court that the freezone are legitimate
> Scientologists, just as legitimate as regular Scientologists.

You are aware that the specific file in question comes from the Freezone?

henri

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 9:22:59 AM4/7/08
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:11:44 -0700 (PDT), Anonology <shroom...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

For legal purposes, they're unpublished. Publication is the legal right of the
author and is not eliminated by unlawful distribution, however extensive.

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:34:28 PM4/7/08
to
On Apr 7, 9:03�am, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> chuckbeatt...@aol.com:

I forget it is the freezone Scientologists who are demonstrating the
word "free" in their freely sharing Hubbard's ideas!

DM's done away with the movement's think tank, Exec Strata, and
there's no other execs at the top ranks landscape to compete with DM's
strategic visions for the future of the movement, so even looking at
the whole mess in hindsight, per Hubbard's loopy doctrines, there is
this dropped "hat" of reforming his faulty policies and ideas.

Logically if the movement cannot manage to deal with their faults,
those that like some of Hubbard's ideas will be selective, and play
their Scientology practice outside the restraints of official
Scientology's authoritarianism.

It's all Hubbard's fault to begin with and all his solutions which
create more layers of problems, how to pick this apart, I think the
freezone people are cutting edge in that battle.

My conclusion is the people who are suckered into the official
movement, are the same good people who get ousted and quit and
continue doing something or other in the freezone. They are picking
through the Hubbard doctrines selectively, and that's way better than
the ones stuck fully in official Scientology who are stuck with the
illogical results of Hubbard's multi-layered problem causing rules and
setups in official Scientology.

My biggest conclusion is good people stuck in Hubbard's way too
problem causing authoritarian official setup.

I'm an atheist and materialist, and I observe there are good people
within and without official Scientology, and that the freezone
Scientologists are at least free to communicate with "SPs" freely, as
least they communicate freely to me, and that's better than official
Scientologists (who would get in trouble if they told their org ethics
officers that they are emailing me).

In fact the vicious Hubbard label of freezone Scientologists saying
that freezone Scientologists are not Scientologists, must really drive
the freezone Scientologists into the most wierd "out-list" "wrong
indication" pissed off mental condition.

Yes, I think I am getting how "out-list" and "wrong-indication" bashed
up mentally the freezone and Ron's Org people must feel.

This to me is another one of Hubbard's unrecognized major blindspots,
in that he has NOT recognized this mental condition he's put the
people who consider themselves faithful to Hubbard's tech, but these
people (freezone Scientologists) are ostracized and classified and
labeled as "suppressives" per Hubbard's official Scientology rules.

This is major out-list wrong-indication type stuff he's caused for
people of the freezone mindset.

What interesting layers of allegience predicaments Hubbard's mess has
caused.

It would be a mental relief I think for freezone Scientologists to get
recognition as Scientologists by the next Roy Wallis (new religious
movement sociologist scholar) who does a report on the cutting edge
history of Scientology.

(Gosh, I'd think UK freezone people would get recognized over there,
UK media, scholars are more than capable of recognizing freezone
Scientologists as "genuine" Scientologists, I'd say!)

That would drive the schism splinter issue into the forefront, and
knock out official Scientology's claim as "THE" Scientology, with all
other brands NOT being Scientology, which is ludicrous.

These are Hubbard's ideas! Surely the Hubbard layers of bad ideas
only need to be inspected and beaten in dialogue to win freezone
Scientology as a legitimate brand of Scientology!

Oh, I had an auwful conclusion thinking about this. This means then
what Jonathan B's dreams of making a reformed Sea Org at some future
date makes "sense" of sorts! Yipes!

If I were a freezone UK person, I'd be talking to the UK new religious
movement sociologist scholar types!

I think freezone Scientologists demonstrate proof of a reformed way
less authoritarian, less totalitarian, less 1984ish, group activity.

If there is a freezone actually out there, then they should be
recorded, and if they are acting decently across the boards, that
should be noted as an example of what official Scientology could
reform into, since offiical Scientology draws the most flack for the
disgraceful problems official Scientology creates.

Sharing freely of Hubbard's ideas, that's pretty inevitable, even if
the freezone is tiny, and transient, and just a loose almost
insignificant network of ex official Scientologists. It still
represents a reform splinter group of official Scientology is all
cases.

Western civ isn't into book burning all the works/ideas of a stupid
science fiction therapy new religious movement cult just yet!

So, I think some UK scholars just need to be befriended by some
freezone UK smart people, and educate those scholars on the existing
freezone scene in the world.

Let the scholars do their jobs and publicly make their observations
known, and that might put freezone Scientology on the map.

That I think will inevitably longer range result in a weakening and
reform of official Scientology. The authoritarian worst of Hubbard's
layers of problamatic rules that are a burden on official follower's
mentality (and the stigma "wrong indication" game official Scientology
plays out due to Hubbard's vengeful jealousy even against those that
use some of Hubbard's "tech"), I think MORE communication by freezone
people will lead to official Scientology's reform.

I think some freezone people need to read, force themselves to read,
Roy Wallis' "The Road to Total Freedom" and then demand some UK
scholars to take up the history from 1977 to present time, in the same
level of quality study that Roy Wallis did!

Chuck Beatty

Anonology

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 3:35:28 PM4/7/08
to
On Apr 7, 9:22 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:11:44 -0700 (PDT), Anonology <shroomiga...@yahoo.com>

Actually, they're not unpublished... they've been published by the
church to be seen by select members of the organisation, which is
lawful distribution... if the church has any claim of copyright, it is
against the persons who leaked them and not against the website which
received them in good faith...

Moreover, any copyright claim is baseless if copies of the copyrighted
material are not sent to the copyright office... a copy of every
filing is held in the library of congress, and can be viewed by
anyone... if those exact documents are not in the Library of Congress,
then the claim would be invalid...

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 4:48:49 PM4/7/08
to
chuckb...@aol.com:

> If I were a freezone UK person, I'd be talking to the UK new religious
> movement sociologist scholar types!

So far as I know we're out of them - Eileen Barker has retired and the
others also seem inactive. The general anti-cult groups have shown no
interest in Anonymous that I know of either.

butterflygrrrl

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 6:14:33 PM4/7/08
to
On Apr 7, 5:43 am, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> anothersurfer...@hotmail.com:

>
> > Yeah... "Xenu?  Never heard of him."  (Various and many scientology
> > spokesfolk.)
> > How can they have it both ways?
>
> That's Ms Paquette's standard Cut & Paste text, everyone gets it
> applicable or not. I'm sure Keith and Zenon feel a warm glow every time
> they see it!
>
> No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by Warren
> McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.

<snip>

Then what is the 'secret'?

henri

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 7:26:08 PM4/7/08
to
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Anonology <shroom...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 7, 9:22 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:


>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:11:44 -0700 (PDT), Anonology <shroomiga...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:

>> >On Apr 6, 4:12 pm, Scientology is a cult <Y...@ema.yil> wrote:
>> >> To: Le...@sunshinepress.org                                    
>> >> Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials              
>> >> From: ampaque...@aol.com                                        
>> >> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:22 +0000 (GMT)
>> >> Dear Legal:
>> >>....  The Advanced Technology materials are
>> >> unpublished, copyrighted works.  
>> >How can they say they're unpublished?  They've been published on the
>> >web on numerous occasions.

>> For legal purposes, they're unpublished.  Publication is the legal right of the
>> author and is not eliminated by unlawful distribution, however extensive.

>Actually, they're not unpublished... they've been published by the
>church to be seen by select members of the organisation, which is
>lawful distribution... if the church has any claim of copyright, it is
>against the persons who leaked them and not against the website which
>received them in good faith...

That's not considered publication for the purpose of a fair use analysis.

>Moreover, any copyright claim is baseless if copies of the copyrighted
>material are not sent to the copyright office... a copy of every
>filing is held in the library of congress, and can be viewed by
>anyone... if those exact documents are not in the Library of Congress,
>then the claim would be invalid...

Some selected registrations:

LIST OF UNPUBLISHED CONFIDENTIAL LITERARY WORKS
WORK REG DATE REG NUMBER
1. CLASS VIII "ASSISTS" TAPE Sep 7, 1994 TXu 593-514

2. NOTS Issue 24 "NOTS CORRECTION LIST" Nov 10, 1986 TXu 257-326

3. OT 1 Sep 1, 1987 TXu 303-382

4. OT 2 Sep 17, 1987 TXu 303-388

5. NOTS Issue 34 Nov 10, 1986 TXu 257-326

6. NOTS Issue 35 Nov 10, 1986 TXu 257-326

7. NOTS Issue 36 Nov 10, 1986 TXu 257-326

8. NOTS Issue 1 Nov 10, 1986 TXu 257-326

9. NOTS Issue 42 Nov 10, 1986 TXu 257-326

Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
23572 (D. Cal. 1997)

There are other much more complete lists.

There are copies at the copyright office. Some of them are "masked." This
means that the copies are partly obscured with a sheet with various sized holes
or slices cut in it so that infringements can be compared against the copies,
verifying that the work presented in the lawsuit is really what was registered,
but not making the work publicly available.

The issue of whether they're allowed to do this has already been litigated
repeatedly. They've won.

"n28 There is no merit to Erlich's claim that the registration of the Advanced
Technology works with the Copyright Office forfeited their trade secret status,
as it appears that these works were registered in masked form. McShane May 31,
1995 Decl., Ex. A. There is likewise no merit to Erlich's argument that the
Class VIII Assists lecture tape is not properly licensed to RTC and has not been
kept confidential. See McShane Depo. at 134, 140; Byrne Decl. PP 7-14."
Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 923 F. Supp. 1231, 1255
(D. Cal. 1995). Also: "Filed in conjunction with RTC's motion for summary
judgment was a set of exhibits (the 'G-Series Exhibits') containing 33
comparisons of RTC's copyrighted works and the 'copies' allegedly in Lerma's
possession and/or posted by him to the Internet. Each of these exhibits includes
the written segment allegedly copied by Lerma, the corresponding Hubbard
original, a certificate of copyright registration, a certified photocopy of the
masked work on file at the Copyright Office of the United States, and a full
(i.e. unmasked) 'translation' of that photocopy." Religious Tech. Ctr. v.
Lerma, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15454 (D. Va. 1996).

The idea that materials can be distributed on a limited basis, when controls
are in place to ensure that the publication does not occur on a more broad
basis, is not unique to Scientology. The makers of standardized tests such
as the SAT have a similar deal.

Similarly, the "masking" procedure is not unique to Scientology. "The Copyright
Office granted special relief from the normal procedure of depositing
copyrighted materials and allowed Upjohn merely to lodge a list of Bates numbers
and then to file 100 'masked' pages to fulfill the deposit requirement."
Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 137 F.R.D. 372, 386 (D. Utah 1991)

There is a twist, which is where the litigation is likely to occur. However,
they've won on this very issue, the unpublished status of Scientology's works,
even in Sweden, which is, I believe, where at least one of the WikiLeaks servers
is. I'm not convinced that's the appropriate venue, or that Sweden would have
jurisdiction over whoever Scientology actually wants to sue, or that whatever
Scientology entity bringing the lawsuit would not have better choices of forum
or venue.

So far, on these issues, and on this degree of copying, they've never lost a
suit they've filed, both as to the unpublished nature of the works and as to
wholesale copyright infringement being indefensible. I can't imagine WL
winning such a suit in any Hague Convention country. I can only conclude
that they're either foolhardy, have some reason to believe they can't be
brought under the jurisdiction of any court with the power to make them
stop, or believe, correctly or not, that whatever purpose they are serving
is more important to them than their legal liability.

While I hope they're right, I'm not sure they're completely aware what they're
getting themselves into here. They don't seem like stupid people, so I look
forward to seeing what they have up their sleeve.

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 7:31:02 PM4/7/08
to
butterflygrrrl <butterf...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bc5fae34-e7ca-468e...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 7, 5:43ĸam, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> anothersurfer...@hotmail.com:
>>
>> > Yeah... "Xenu? ĸNever heard of him." ĸ(Various and many scientology


>> > spokesfolk.)
>> > How can they have it both ways?
>>
>> That's Ms Paquette's standard Cut & Paste text, everyone gets it
>> applicable or not. I'm sure Keith and Zenon feel a warm glow every
>> time they see it!
>>
>> No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by
>> Warren
>
>> McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.
>
> <snip>
>
> Then what is the 'secret'?

OT9 consists of one word:


"SUCKERS!"
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 8:27:02 PM4/7/08
to

> On Apr 7, 5:43ĸam, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> anothersurfer...@hotmail.com:
>>
>> > Yeah... "Xenu? ĸNever heard of him." ĸ(Various and many scientology


>> > spokesfolk.)
>> > How can they have it both ways?
>>
>> That's Ms Paquette's standard Cut & Paste text, everyone gets it
>> applicable or not. I'm sure Keith and Zenon feel a warm glow every
>> time they see it!
>>
>> No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by
>> Warren
>
>> McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.
>
> <snip>
>
> Then what is the 'secret'?

OT9 consists of one word:

barb

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 8:27:48 PM4/7/08
to
Scientology is a cult wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 5:43ÿam, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> anothersurfer...@hotmail.com:
>>>
>>>> Yeah... "Xenu? ÿNever heard of him." ÿ(Various and many scientology

>>>> spokesfolk.)
>>>> How can they have it both ways?
>>> That's Ms Paquette's standard Cut & Paste text, everyone gets it
>>> applicable or not. I'm sure Keith and Zenon feel a warm glow every
>>> time they see it!
>>>
>>> No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by
>>> Warren
>>> McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Then what is the 'secret'?
>
> OT9 consists of one word:
>
>
> "SUCKERS!"
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

aaaand OT 10? "YOU LOST THE GAME"

Anonology

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 8:46:32 PM4/7/08
to
On Apr 7, 7:26 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Anonology <shroomiga...@yahoo.com>
> forward to seeing what they have up their sleeve.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wikileaks takes advantage of the same quirk in Swedish copyright law
that piratebay does, they don't host the materials on their own
servers, they only link to them... under Swedish law linking to a
copyrighted document does not constitute infringement...

The only recourse scientology, inc has is to find out who's hosting
the documents, and sue them individually, like the RIAA did... notice
that the RIAA lawsuit has not been effective in abating music sharing
on the internet... Scientology likewise will be unsuccessful...

henri

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 8:53:20 PM4/7/08
to
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:46:32 -0700 (PDT), Anonology <shroom...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Wikileaks takes advantage of the same quirk in Swedish copyright law


>that piratebay does, they don't host the materials on their own
>servers, they only link to them... under Swedish law linking to a
>copyrighted document does not constitute infringement...

That's the case in many jurisdictions. I think that's the way it should
be, in general.

>The only recourse scientology, inc has is to find out who's hosting
>the documents, and sue them individually, like the RIAA did... notice
>that the RIAA lawsuit has not been effective in abating music sharing
>on the internet... Scientology likewise will be unsuccessful...

Scientology will be unsuccessful in removing their materials off the net.
They have been since 1995. They were among the earliest failures at
stopping people from distributing material online. That won't stop them
from costing whoever they sue a lot of money, or from winning as many
Pyrrhic victories as they can afford.

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 9:13:00 PM4/7/08
to
barb <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in news:5_yKj.26916$KJ1.25493
@newsfe19.lga:

>>>> No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by
>>>> Warren
>>>> McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Then what is the 'secret'?
>>
>> OT9 consists of one word:
>>
>>
>> "SUCKERS!"
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> aaaand OT 10? "YOU LOST THE GAME"

Actually, it's "WTF I ALREADY CALLED YOU A SUCKER! GET OUT NAO."

Fredric L. Rice

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:04:17 PM4/7/08
to
SaveXenu <save...@live.ca> wrote:

>wow can they make any bigger of an ass of themselves?

That's just it. The insane crooks haven't learned a thing since
their attempts to stop freedom of speech in this newsgroup way
back in 1995. What insane morons.

Fredric L. Rice

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:05:26 PM4/7/08
to
butterflygrrrl <butterf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 5:43=A0am, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:

>> McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.
><snip>
>Then what is the 'secret'?

"I mock up my own reactive mind." Well, that's _ONE_ of the frauds
that the rubes aren't supposed to know. Another is, "Now that I know
who I am not I am ready to find out who I am." That's another fraud
the crime syndicate doesn't want the marks to know is a Scientology
"secret."

Fredric L. Rice

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:10:09 PM4/7/08
to
Anonology <shroom...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>How can they say they're unpublished? They've been published on the
>web on numerous occasions.

The crime syndicate used to demand that they were "trade secrets"
until a Judge struck down that fraud -- and smacked the insane crooks
around a bit while doing so.

But the fact also remains that they _ARE_ published as well. They
sell glimpses of the documents to their remaining brainwashed customers.

Fredric L. Rice

unread,
Apr 7, 2008, 12:12:37 PM4/7/08
to
Anonology <shroom...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Moreover, any copyright claim is baseless if copies of the
> copyrighted material are not sent to the copyright office.

That's not correct. Copyright is default however getting monetary
awards for someone violating one's copyrights for commercial purposes
requires that extracts of the copyrighted work be recorded. The
crime syndicate started back filing documents after Wollersheim
started uncovering other copyright fraud being committed by the
crie syndicate.

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 2:59:47 AM4/8/08
to
On Apr 7, 4:48�pm, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> chuckbeatt...@aol.com:
>

I was in touch with some people from INFORM, and you can contact UK
researcher scholars via INFORM, that's what I've done.

I urged a freezone person to attend a conference and the freezone
person did, just last week, in the UK.

INFORM (UK cult watch group)
Suzanne Newcombe Inf...@lse.ac.uk
Assistant Research Officer
Inform
www.lse.ac.uk/collections/INFORM/

I suggest UK freezone Scientologists wishing to get their two cents to
INFORM go ahead and email INFORM.

The whole freezone story is under reported, and needs some historical
summarizing and being put in context like Roy Wallis might have done
if he were alive to update his book on Scientology.

Best, Chuck

Eldon

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 3:14:50 AM4/8/08
to
On Apr 7, 6:10 pm, FR...@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:

> Anonology <shroomiga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >How can they say they're unpublished? They've been published on the
> >web on numerous occasions.
>
> The crime syndicate used to demand that they were "trade secrets"
> until a Judge struck down that fraud -- and smacked the insane crooks
> around a bit while doing so.
>
> But the fact also remains that they _ARE_ published as well. They
> sell glimpses of the documents to their remaining brainwashed customers.

Nope, they are NOT published as defined by the copyright office. That
would mean they were made available to the public at large. Limited
distribution is not the same as publication, as Henri says. A common
example would be a memo or an e-mail sent to a list of specific
people.

But if you post it here where anybody can read it, you have published
it, whether legally or not.

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 6:16:30 AM4/8/08
to
chuckb...@aol.com:

> I was in touch with some people from INFORM, and you can contact UK
> researcher scholars via INFORM, that's what I've done.
>
> I urged a freezone person to attend a conference and the freezone
> person did, just last week, in the UK.

I stand corrected! Times would certainly be changing if INFORM were to do
something that they knew would annoy the happy fun cult.

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 12:00:41 PM4/8/08
to
On Apr 8, 2:59 am, "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckbeatt...@aol.com>
wrote:

I re-read the Wikipedia article on Freezone, and it is excellent!

The freezone is defined very well here: http://tinyurl.com/2lowy4
(this goes to the Wikipedia article on the freezone)

Best, Chuck

Eldon

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 12:22:24 PM4/8/08
to
On Apr 7, 8:52 am, Scientology is a cult <Y...@ema.yil> wrote:
> Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote in news:62b8c333-6d5d-49cd-99e7-
> 97f4c9eeb...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:11 am, Anonology <shroomiga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 6, 4:12 pm, Scientology is a cult <Y...@ema.yil> wrote:
>
> >> > To: Le...@sunshinepress.org
> >> > Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
> >> > From: ampaque...@aol.com
> >> > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:22 +0000 (GMT)
> >> > Dear Legal:
>
> >> >.... The Advanced Technology materials are
> >> > unpublished, copyrighted works.
>
> >> How can they say they're unpublished? They've been published on the
> >> web on numerous occasions.
>
> > You'd think they would have learned just to shut up by now, wouldn't
> > you? Every time they whine, it only leads more people to download the
> > sekrit skriptures.
>
> BTW, it's now on the front page of digg.

Thank you for telling us that! ;-)

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 12:29:58 PM4/8/08
to
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:59:47 -0700 (PDT), "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
<chuckb...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Apr 7, 4:48?pm, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>

Although I don't know whether INFORM has changed since the "Eileen
Barker days", I'd advise against working with them. I suggest you
contact FAIR instead.

Tilman


--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
http://www.xenu.de

Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.

Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html

Mark Thorson

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 3:02:47 PM4/8/08
to
"chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" wrote:
>
> I re-read the Wikipedia article on Freezone, and it is excellent!
>
> The freezone is defined very well here: http://tinyurl.com/2lowy4
> (this goes to the Wikipedia article on the freezone)

Here's another article you might like,
if you haven't seen it already:

http://ca-da.org/history/vanvogt_history.htm

AK Myers

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 4:57:34 PM4/8/08
to
barb wrote:
> Scientology is a cult wrote:
>> butterflygrrrl <butterf...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:bc5fae34-e7ca-468e...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>> On Apr 7, 5:43ÿam, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> anothersurfer...@hotmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah... "Xenu? ÿNever heard of him." ÿ(Various and many scientology
>>>>> spokesfolk.)
>>>>> How can they have it both ways?
>>>> That's Ms Paquette's standard Cut & Paste text, everyone gets it
>>>> applicable or not. I'm sure Keith and Zenon feel a warm glow every
>>>> time they see it!
>>>>
>>>> No, she's not 'admitting Xenu'. We've already been told in court by
>>>> Warren McShane that the Xenu story is not the 'secret'.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Then what is the 'secret'?
>>
>> OT9 consists of one word:
>>
>>
>> "SUCKERS!"
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> aaaand OT 10? "YOU LOST THE GAME"
>
>
>

EP of OT 11

One cognites. "I'm mocking up my own BT's!"

A.K. Myers
The original joker & degrader
Hey OSA! Found those folders yet?

Scientology is a cult

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 9:28:01 PM4/8/08
to
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in news:47FBC157...@sonic.net:

On the whole, the Freezoners are decent people. Far more decent than the
attack poodles the Cult of Scientology produces.

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Apr 8, 2008, 9:28:24 PM4/8/08
to
chuckb...@aol.com:

> I re-read the Wikipedia article on Freezone, and it is excellent!
>
> The freezone is defined very well here: http://tinyurl.com/2lowy4
> (this goes to the Wikipedia article on the freezone)

It starts off OK, that bit is easy, after that it's a disconnected
assortment of bits. See the final comment on the Discussion page.

:-))

Piltdown Man

unread,
Apr 9, 2008, 5:57:41 AM4/9/08
to

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote...

> (Gosh, I'd think UK freezone people would get recognized over there,
> UK media, scholars are more than capable of recognizing freezone
> Scientologists as "genuine" Scientologists, I'd say!)
>
> That would drive the schism splinter issue into the forefront, and
> knock out official Scientology's claim as "THE" Scientology, with all
> other brands NOT being Scientology, which is ludicrous.

I doubt the UK media would be much interested in reporting a schism within
such an obscure little group (religious or otherwise), let alone in trying
to decide which of the sides in this schism is "right".

> These are Hubbard's ideas! Surely the Hubbard layers of bad ideas
> only need to be inspected and beaten in dialogue to win freezone
> Scientology as a legitimate brand of Scientology!

Hubbard's ideas are just as kooky whether they're defended by CoS'ers or
freezoners. There is no debate, certainly no debate that any non-Hubbardite
outsider would have interest in joining. Who the hell outside Scientology
is interested in deciding whether or not someone is a "legitimate"
Scientologist?

<snip>


> If I were a freezone UK person, I'd be talking to the UK new religious
> movement sociologist scholar types!

Sociologists tend to go for phenomena that have some social relevance.
Scientology is much too small to warrant much attention. Let alone even
tinier little splinter groups that may be around if you look very, very
hard for them.

> Western civ isn't into book burning all the works/ideas of a stupid
> science fiction therapy new religious movement cult just yet!

Nor is it into giving much attention to books that nobody reads or buys
anyway. Hubbard's books won't disappear because they're being burned, but
because they're being pulped.

Piltdown Man

unread,
Apr 9, 2008, 6:31:49 AM4/9/08
to

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote...

<snip>
> Again, the model to compare against, is the freezone which do NOT go
> maddog nor maddog legal regarding the leaking of the no longer
> "confidential" material.

Nobody in the freezone has any legal claim to any of Hubbard's
"confidential" material, which they rely upon for their own activities.
They couldn't go maddog legal on this issue if they wanted to, they're the
ones who have to fear legal proceedings from the copyright holder.

> I think of two defenses in court:
>
> 1)
> a) first demonstrate in court that the freezone are legitimate
> Scientologists, just as legitimate as regular Scientologists.

Even if you could find a court willing to entertain a theological debate
like that, and play arbiter in the theological wranglings of two groups of
people who both claim to be "legitimate Scientologists", it would be
completely irrelevant to the question of who owns the copyrights to
Hubbard's writings.

> b) demonstrate that freezone scientologists don't have ANY of the
> problems that Hubbard said they would have with people who expose
> themselves to the confidential materials,

Again, completely irrelevant to who owns the copyrights to these writings.

<snip>
> c) demonstrate how widely these "confidential" materials are actually
> spread, and that the core significance of these "confidential"
> materials are actually leaked left right and center for decades all
> over the public domain,

Again, completely irrelevant. Just because a lot of illegal copies of some
work are around doesn't mean it has become part of the public domain. Based
on your reasoning, any Hollywood movie becomes a part of the public domain
the moment there are enough pirated copies of it floating around.

<snip>
> 2) regular religions don't hide their theology,

You may believe that, but is's irrelevant to copyright issues. A copyright
owner has every right to keep works he owns confidential.

<snip>
> On top of this, one could show in court, with the help of PLENTY of
> freezone and ex official Scientologists just how even MORE dramatically
> a "case" can be "damaged" by the "out-lists" phenomenon (for example).

No, one couldn't. One would have been laughed out of court long before one
could hypothetically reach such a farcical stage.

<snip>
> Then have the publisher face off in court with Scientology, and just
> end this legal charade game that the Scientology lawyers are getting
> away making their pay supporting Hubbard's wrong extremist opinions
> about the "harm" that this "confidential" scriptures causes!

That has never been, and never will be, an issue in any court case. The
legal disputes are about who owns the copyright to a certain body of
writings. So far, nobody has ever come up with anything showing that that
isn't Scientology, Inc. (under its various legal aliases).

If you want to read about a case where very similar issues were raised
(with one schismatic branch of a religious group claiming its religious
rights trumped the other schismatic branch's copyright to the founding
guru's writings), you may want to look up Worldwide Church of God v.
Philadelphia Church of God, a case about the printing of unauthorised
copies of "Mystery of the Ages" by Herbert Armstrong (a fascinating book,
I'm sure).


Hartley Patterson

unread,
Apr 9, 2008, 6:46:32 AM4/9/08
to
pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry:

> I doubt the UK media would be much interested in reporting a schism within
> such an obscure little group (religious or otherwise), let alone in trying
> to decide which of the sides in this schism is "right".

Channel 4 devoted a TV program to it not long ago! The only requirement
for stories is that they be interesting. Boring stuff is only reported on
if it's really, really important.

> Sociologists tend to go for phenomena that have some social relevance.
> Scientology is much too small to warrant much attention.

Small but vocal and attention seeking, unlike other cults. It's picked up
the Hollywood belief that it should get lots of positive media attention
but nothing negative.

Eldon

unread,
Apr 9, 2008, 7:07:03 AM4/9/08
to
On Apr 9, 12:31 pm, "Piltdown Man"
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> chuckbeatty77 @aol.com <chuckbeatt...@aol.com> wrote...

Yes, but whether he is aware of the difference or not, Chuck is also
talking about the trademark issue regarding the name (brand)
"Scientology" -- whatever it might be worth these days.

Religions have traditionally not tried to protect the name of the
movement using trademark laws.

Fred Phelps says he's a Baptist despite the fact that the mainstream
Baptist churches want nothing to do with him.

The Branch Davidians, headed by David Koresh, never got sued for
trademark infringement.

Scientology has won a case or two in the US on this basis, but there
is no guarantee they would in another country.

Also, I don't agree with you on how "tiny" Scientology is. They could
probably claim 50,000 members worldwide, and they are highly visible
because of all those empty yet impressive buildings with big signs on
them.

henri

unread,
Apr 9, 2008, 11:37:04 AM4/9/08
to
On 09 Apr 2008 09:57:41 GMT, "Piltdown Man" <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry>
wrote:

>Hubbard's ideas are just as kooky whether they're defended by CoS'ers or
>freezoners.

The same can be said of any religion and its crazy ideas.

>There is no debate, certainly no debate that any non-Hubbardite
>outsider would have interest in joining. Who the hell outside Scientology
>is interested in deciding whether or not someone is a "legitimate"
>Scientologist?

The question of whether any organization can claim to have a monopoly
over any set of beliefs is a significant one, and can have wide ranging
impact on society. This is true whether the religion is dominating, as
was Christianity when the Vatican was trying to tell Martin Luther and
his followers that they had a monopoly on Christianity, suppressing
the Gutenberg Bible, etc., or whether the religion is tiny, as in cases
like the Seventh Day Adventists, whose splitoff the Branch Davidians
caused quite a deal of trouble.

I think saying that any organization should be allowed to oppress its
heretics and attempt to deny them the use of the name of their religion
is troubling, whether or not it's a religion I agree with (and there is no
religion I agree with).

Piltdown Man

unread,
Apr 11, 2008, 4:54:05 PM4/11/08
to

henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...

> On 09 Apr 2008 09:57:41 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry>
> wrote:
>
> >Hubbard's ideas are just as kooky whether they're defended by CoS'ers or
> >freezoners.
>
> The same can be said of any religion and its crazy ideas.
>
> >There is no debate, certainly no debate that any non-Hubbardite
> >outsider would have interest in joining. Who the hell outside
> >Scientology is interested in deciding whether or not someone is
> >a "legitimate" Scientologist?
>
> The question of whether any organization can claim to have a monopoly
> over any set of beliefs is a significant one, and can have wide ranging
> impact on society. This is true whether the religion is dominating, as
> was Christianity when the Vatican was trying to tell Martin Luther and
> his followers that they had a monopoly on Christianity, suppressing
> the Gutenberg Bible, etc., or whether the religion is tiny, as in cases
> like the Seventh Day Adventists, whose splitoff the Branch Davidians
> caused quite a deal of trouble.

The Branch Davidians certainly got a lot of media attention. Just like the
mass suicides of the bizarre Order of the Solar Temple did in Europe. But
neither of those led to any kind of public debate about whether or not the
Branch Davidians were 'legitimate' Seventh Day Adventists or not, or
whether the Order of the Solar Temple was a 'legitimate' branch of whatever
it was that they claimed to be a branch of. There was no "wide ranging
impact on society" at all.

Any comparison to the Reformation fails completely. Christianity in the
form of Roman Catholicism was not only the only religion allowed, but the
religion imposed by the state for everyone in Western Europe when the
Reformation came along (barring some Jews who were allowed a precarious
existence, not just socially and religiously but usually also physically
separated from normal society). It wasn't an internal theological and
terminological squabble, inscrutable to outsiders, among a tiny little
fringe group, with no impact whatsoever on those not involved.

> I think saying that any organization should be allowed to oppress its
> heretics and attempt to deny them the use of the name of their religion
> is troubling, whether or not it's a religion I agree with (and there is
> no religion I agree with).

I think a lot of intellectual property law is troubling, and I don't care
at all about whether some organization chooses to call itself "a religion"
or not. The legal fact remains that Scientology, Inc. currently owns the
copyrights to Hubbard's writings, and therefore has every right to decide
how, or if, they're published, and to sue anybody who publishes them
without permission. I'm not aware of any special exemptions in intellectual
property law (copyright, trademark or perhaps even patent law), anywhere in
the world, for stuff labelled "religious".

Piltdown Man

unread,
Apr 11, 2008, 4:54:06 PM4/11/08
to

Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...

> pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry:
>
>> I doubt the UK media would be much interested in reporting a schism
>> within such an obscure little group (religious or otherwise), let alone
>> in trying to decide which of the sides in this schism is "right".
>
> Channel 4 devoted a TV program to it not long ago! The only requirement
> for stories is that they be interesting. Boring stuff is only reported
> on if it's really, really important.

I'm sure it can be entertaining enough for the occasional light-hearted
"look at these weirdos quarreling" type of story. Not for any serious or
sustained reporting.



>> Sociologists tend to go for phenomena that have some social relevance.
>> Scientology is much too small to warrant much attention.
>
> Small but vocal and attention seeking, unlike other cults. It's picked
> up the Hollywood belief that it should get lots of positive media
> attention but nothing negative.

I don't have a high regard for sociologists, but I doubt many of them
choose their objects of study on the basis of such criteria.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages