======== From: biteme@co$isevil.edu (Don NOTs) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:51:29 -0800 -------- In the US District Court for Northern California this morning, the Co$ (wearing its cunning RTC disguise) has dropped its claims for statuatory damages against Dennis Erlich. Report to follow. -- For the REAL scoop on $cientology, see http://www.xenu.net ======== From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 18 Dec 1998 18:47:15 PST -------- biteme@co$isevil.edu (Don NOTs): >In the US District Court for Northern California this morning, the Co$ >(wearing its cunning RTC disguise) has dropped its claims for statuatory >damages against Dennis Erlich. Ooops. There goes another $2mil in claims against me. After 4 years of litigation, and unconstitutionally ransacking my privacy, they first withdrew the Trade Sekrit claims and not the copyright damages. They're trying to tell the court "nevermind" so they don't have to allow a jury to decide fair use in the case of my critical postings. >Report to follow. What's to say? The only thing left is for Whyte to wise up and dismiss their claims as frivolous. But we'd rather a jury did it. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 18 Dec 1998 20:41:45 PST -------- inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich): > Ooops. > > There goes another $2mil in claims against me. After 4 years of >litigation, and unconstitutionally ransacking my privacy, they first >withdrew the Trade Sekrit claims and not the copyright damages. Make that "... now the copyright damages." Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 04:43:15 -0100 -------- Rev Dennis Erlich skrev: > > biteme@co$isevil.edu (Don NOTs): > > >In the US District Court for Northern California this morning, the Co$ > >(wearing its cunning RTC disguise) has dropped its claims for statuatory > >damages against Dennis Erlich. > > Ooops. > > There goes another $2mil in claims against me. After 4 years of > litigation, and unconstitutionally ransacking my privacy, they first > withdrew the Trade Sekrit claims and not the copyright damages. Congratulations! But with TM infringement gone and statutory damages gone, what is now left in the lawsuit? The way I understand it, if copyright infringement is proven you get statutory damages automatically, and if you can't prove the infringement, you get nothing anyway. I simply don't see the point in insisting that an infringement has been committed and yet not asking for statutory damages, so I assume I've got an M/U here. Please explain. Z -- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth... ======== From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 18 Dec 1998 21:14:45 PST -------- Zenon Panoussis : >Congratulations! Thanks. >But with TM infringement gone You mean trade sekret? >and statutory damages gone, what is >now left in the lawsuit? They want me found guilty of infringing, and simply placed under a permanent injunction (similar to the TRO I am now under) which enjoins me from exceeding fair use. >The way I understand it, if copyright >infringement is proven you get statutory damages automatically, >and if you can't prove the infringement, you get nothing anyway. >I simply don't see the point in insisting that an infringement >has been committed and yet not asking for statutory damages, so >I assume I've got an M/U here. Please explain. Without statutory damages, I don't get to present my case to a jury. Only Whyte decides the fair use issue. And he's the one who authorized the unconstitutional raid in the first place. Personally, I trust 12 people who don't think fraudulently obtained and unconstitutionally asserted property rights trump first, forth and 14th amendment civil rights, more than I would some federal judge who issues unconstitutional writs of seizure for excessive quoting. But hey. That's just me. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 14:15:31 -0100 -------- Rev Dennis Erlich skrev: > >But with TM infringement gone > You mean trade sekret? Yes. > They want me found guilty of infringing, and simply placed under a > permanent injunction (similar to the TRO I am now under) which enjoins > me from exceeding fair use. OK, now I see. But that would be a phyrric victory for them; it is impossible to define fair use beforehand, so the only way for you to find out where the limit goes, is to publish again and again, until you know. I have introduced this precise argument in my appeal against the injunction against me. I claim that an injunction must be clear and plain and not demand complicated legal interpre- tation on the side of the enjoyned party. Assuming that you have the best intentions to respect the injunction, you would have to be very restictive, go too far on the other side and abstain from big part of what you think is fair use, in order not to risk violating the injunction. In other words, an in- junction that does not specify the precise act that it forbids you to commit, violates your rights (of free speech in this case) and does not meet with the demands of clearness and predictability that should apply to an injunction. I might be pushing the idea too far, but I think you could have a case of injunction vs 1st amendment rights there, as long as fair use is not defined in the injunction itself. > Without statutory damages, I don't get to present my case to a > jury. Only Whyte decides the fair use issue. And he's the > one who authorized the unconstitutional raid in the first place. > > Personally, I trust 12 people who don't think fraudulently obtained > and unconstitutionally asserted property rights trump first, forth and > 14th amendment civil rights, more than I would some federal judge who > issues unconstitutional writs of seizure for excessive quoting. > > But hey. That's just me. Yes, I know someone who placed his hopes on the jury and was bitterly disappointed. But if you still want the jury, aren't there any legal tricks you could play to get it? Would raising a constitutional question such as the above get you a jury? (excuse the silly questions - my ignorance of US law is by now well known). Z -- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth... ======== From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 19 Dec 1998 10:44:19 PST -------- Zenon Panoussis : yhn >> They want me found guilty of infringing, and simply placed under a >> permanent injunction (similar to the TRO I am now under) which enjoins >> me from exceeding fair use. z >OK, now I see. But that would be a phyrric victory for them; >it is impossible to define fair use beforehand, so the only >way for you to find out where the limit goes, is to publish >again and again, until you know. It has taken me 4 years of litigation on the subject to still be confused about fair use. You notice I don't quote Elrong much any more? I have a number of posts on hold for review about body thetans, demonic possession, exorcism and their relation to their sales claims that the reactive mind is responsible for irrational behavior and that scienotology is compatible with real religions. >I have introduced this precise argument in my appeal against >the injunction against me. I claim that an injunction must >be clear and plain and not demand complicated legal interpre- >tation on the side of the enjoyned party. Ah, you see, Zenon. This is were you are rong. In America, we are The Proud. This is our pride and joy. The very thing we cite to prove we are a democratic country. Our much touted "Rule O'Law." It is the very same weapon with which our executive branch of government is currently being bludgeoned by the legislative branch. And BTW, it IS clear and plain to the politicians who wrote the law and the lawyers and judges who make their living practicing it on us. It tells us little folk, "stay far, far away from this arbitrary boundary line, or we'll move it to the other side of your 4th Amendment rights and smack into your little homes one morning. Geddit?" It amounts to BAD DOG! And nothing more. >Assuming that you >have the best intentions to respect the injunction, you would >have to be very restictive, go too far on the other side and >abstain from big part of what you think is fair use, in order >not to risk violating the injunction. The courts don't mind at all laying a bit of CHILL on controversial speech. At least not over here they don't. >In other words, an in- >junction that does not specify the precise act that it forbids >you to commit, violates your rights (of free speech in this >case) and does not meet with the demands of clearness and >predictability that should apply to an injunction. I might >be pushing the idea too far, but I think you could have a >case of injunction vs 1st amendment rights there, as long >as fair use is not defined in the injunction itself. You would be dreaming if you expected any American court to notice (or care about) such subtleties as clearly defining what specific acts are enjoined in an injunction. It's just a stay-away order. "Don't you come anywheres around here no mo." >> Without statutory damages, I don't get to present my case to a >> jury. Only Whyte decides the fair use issue. And he's the >> one who authorized the unconstitutional raid in the first place. >> Personally, I trust 12 people who don't think fraudulently obtained >> and unconstitutionally asserted property rights trump first, forth and >> 14th amendment civil rights, more than I would some federal judge who >> issues unconstitutional writs of seizure for excessive quoting. >> But hey. That's just me. > >Yes, I know someone who placed his hopes on the jury and >was bitterly disappointed. I don't know if anyone on such a jury doesn't give a shit about my civil rights. A trial in front of Whyte, on the other hand ... >But if you still want the jury, >aren't there any legal tricks you could play to get it? I leave the "legal tricks" to MoFo. Most of it is above my head. >Would raising a constitutional question such as the above >get you a jury? (excuse the silly questions - my ignorance >of US law is by now well known). Judges usually don't welcome defendants questioning how their injunctions are written, or raising constitutional issues late in a case. Besides, it has been our contention all along that the TRO that I have lived under for 4 years without incident is both unnecessary and legally wrong. This is just a small part of the damages I will be collecting in my counter-claim jury trial. We will be showing the video of the raid. I will testify how they stole my bank statement and gave my bank account number to my vindictive ex wife, rOSA, as payment for her perjurious declaration which they had used to qualify for an ex parte (without giving me the right to respond to their charges first) raid on my home. BTW, with the money I collect in damages, I will be establishing inFormer Ministry's cult recovery facility. Lisa McPherson House. (A half-way house for ex-cultists.) Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== From: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 10:47:34 GMT -------- In , biteme@co$isevil.edu (Don NOTs) wrote: >In the US District Court for Northern California this morning, the Co$ >(wearing its cunning RTC disguise) has dropped its claims for statuatory >damages against Dennis Erlich. That could become funny... what about Dennis Erlich's countersuit for the "visit" ? Is that one still active? -- Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] tilman@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails. Clearwater pictures: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4497/clearwater/index.html Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html ======== From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 19 Dec 1998 10:44:25 PST -------- tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr): biteme@co$isevil.edu (Don NOTs) wrote: >>In the US District Court for Northern California this morning, the Co$ >>(wearing its cunning RTC disguise) has dropped its claims for statuatory >>damages against Dennis Erlich. > >That could become funny... It is very funny, Tillman. Like Emily Latilla said: "Oh ... nevermind." >what about Dennis Erlich's countersuit for >the "visit" ? Is that one still active? Very active. It will go forward in front of a jury on May 3, 1999 in any event; either concurrent with their crumbling copyright claim, or before their claim for an injunction is heard by Whyte. So I'm very pleased. I am also grateful to Morrison & Foerster, the great law firm representing me pro bono, for their superlative work. They have slowly and meticulously peeled back the claw-like grip of the cult from upon my life. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * * ======== From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 20 Dec 1998 15:05:39 PST -------- wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell): >It's not the pro bono work that matters, it is collateral expenses. >Filing fees, document fees and the like. This is probably rather sizable >by now. MoFo has spent over $1.5 mil on the case in fees and costs. >You have three possibilities. >Dennis pays RTC lawyers fees and costs. >RTC pays Dennis. >Nobody pays each other and eats own costs. What was that first choice again? >I doubt Whyte will give Dennis #2, simply because the cult wants >a bench trial rather than jury trial. But they probably feel >#1 and #3 will equally inconvenience Dennis so care little >about that outcome. If they won $1 million, it's not like he can pay. >Having $100,000.00 in expenses is as good as owing a million. >Unless he wins his countersuit. Which I certainly will. >I am not sure one can unilaterally drop the damages portion of a suit >while keeping the suit going. Not without a judge's OK. Whyte has to sign off on it. >And I am sure that Dennis and MoFo will have much to say about this. Much. >We would need a lawyer who can show us some precedents to go on, >in the 9th circuit. Seems to me, this sort of thing would smack >of something that would rely on local circuit custom. ? >Of course, another thought struck me just now. Maybe this is all just a >way to cause a flurry of motions and to delay things for another 6 months >while Whyte scratches his head and then makes a decision. Whyte is never quick, except to allow an unconstitutional, exparte raid for the heinous crime of "excessive quoting." Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *