To: inForm@primenet.com, inForm@newsguy.com Subject: settlement questions From: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 19:17:21 GMT -------- Hi, I have been quite shocked about the rumor of the settlement and I have several questions: - Is there a settlement? - Will the full text of the settlement ever be published? - Do you have to pay anything, and if yes, when? - Is there a gag order? - Has scientology agreed to stop spreading any allegations about you, and to remove such allegations from the web? - Are you forced to stop speaking about scientology in the future? - Why did you take down http://www.informer.org ? - Did you have to sign any statement re: validity of copyrights? - Did you have to sign any other statements, especially about other critics? - Is there any actual agreememnt that the case from your ex is stopped? (Actual agreements. Not "I hope that..." or "I believe that...") - Do you receive any payment? - Do you still owe money to MoFo? - Do you have to turn over any e-mail to scientology / RTC / Bridge Publications / Narconon / Criminon / CoST or to its attorneys or PIs? - What became of the "I will never be silenced" Dennis? - Why did you stop although you were winning the case, especially the counterclaim? - What plans do you have for your future? thanks for answering Tilman ======== To: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Subject: Re: settlement questions From: inForm@newsguy.com (Rev Dennis L Erlich) Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 21:24:10 GMT -------- you wrote: >Hi, Hi Tilman. >I have been quite shocked about the rumor of the settlement Don't be shocked. You should congratulate me. >and I have several questions: Okay. >- Is there a settlement? Yes. >- Will the full text of the settlement ever be published? The court order will be published, of this I am certain. There is nothing else to publish. >- Do you have to pay anything, and if yes, when? Whyte's published order is all there is. Read that for your answer. >- Is there a gag order? Absolutely not. >- Has scientology agreed to stop spreading any allegations about you, >and to remove such allegations from the web? Since the disputes between us have been settled to our mutual satisfaction, I would expect so. >- Are you forced to stop speaking about scientology in the future? I have certainly not been forced into anything. >- Why did you take down http://www.informer.org ? I'm redoing the site. There's nothing at all sinister going on, Tilman. I intend to sublimate the ministry a bit. I think focusing on and giving exposure to that area of the ministry's work which can reach the most people with the purest message, is best. And that's what the ministry will be shooting for in the future. >- Did you have to sign any statement re: validity of copyrights? Not to be rude, Tilman, but I am finished talking on this subject. Privacy is a luxury, which to this point in my life, I have not been fortunate enough to enjoy. Perhaps this would be a healthy time for me to assert such boundaries. But (ever the inFormer) to answer your question, you will not be seeing some new, ugly face of Dennis Erlich. The old one was quite bad enough, thanks. >- Did you have to sign any other statements, especially about other >critics? I have scrupulously intended not to harm anyone, and I believe I have not. I made no admissions or concessions other than the ones which others may access at the San Jose Federal Court and are welcome to publish. As a side note, it is unlikely that I can be counted on to read and/or respond to anything that is not sent to one of my email addressess. >- Is there any actual agreememnt that the case from your ex is stopped? I'm confident a suitable arrangement can be worked out. > (Actual agreements. Not "I hope that..." or "I believe that...") I will be retaining counsel to deal with that matter. >- Do you receive any payment? . >- Do you still owe money to MoFo? No. But the Dennis Erlich Defence Fund is still about $50-110K in the red. I can get the exact figure for you if you're really interested. >- Do you have to turn over any e-mail to scientology / RTC / Bridge >Publications / Narconon / Criminon / CoST or to its attorneys or PIs? Of course not. >- What became of the "I will never be silenced" Dennis? You'll just have to trust me on this, Tilman. I have not been silenced. If I have something more to say, everyone will be hearing it. >- Why did you stop although you were winning the case, especially the >counterclaim? There were huge numbers of reasons. But suffice it to say, I had accomplished what I intended. >- What plans do you have for your future? I plan to stay in touch with everyone who wants to be in contact with me. But, in the short term, I have a number of family and health matters to which I should attend. Beyond that, I hope to travel a bit, and visit with my friends. >thanks for answering No problem. Feel free to let others know this. And additionally, if you chose to do so, please pass along the huge a appreciation I feel their kind thoughts and support. Some day I will think of a way to repay everyone in kind. In the meantime take pleasure in the fact that my friends have cause to celebrate both for and with me. I have freed myself. Be well, Dennis ======== To: inFormer@informer.org Subject: Re: settlement questions From: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 22:28:42 GMT -------- On Sun, 02 May 1999 21:24:10 GMT, Rev Dennis L Erlich wrote: >>- Will the full text of the settlement ever be published? > > The court order will be published, of this I am certain. >There is nothing else to publish. Does this mean the settlement text is confidential, or that the court order *is* identical to the settlement and that there is nothing else? >>- Has scientology agreed to stop spreading any allegations about you, >>and to remove such allegations from the web? > > Since the disputes between us have been settled to our >mutual satisfaction, I would expect so. I wouldn't expect too much from THEM... while they removed the SPC sites, http://www.theta.com/goodman/crime.htm http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol2704/crime2.htm is still available. And I expect of course another freedom magazine article on the topic. >>- Are you forced to stop speaking about scientology in the future? > > I have certainly not been forced into anything. Let me rephrase this. May you speak about scientology in the future if you wish so, or is there any contract preventing this? >>- Why did you take down http://www.informer.org ? > > I'm redoing the site. There's nothing at all sinister >going on, Tilman. I intend to sublimate the ministry a bit. I >think focusing on and giving exposure to that area of the >ministry's work which can reach the most people with the purest >message, is best. And that's what the ministry will be shooting >for in the future. I am not persuaded by that explanation. For example, newspapers do also change their site design/concept often. But they don't take the whole site down for days. It simply suddenly appears "all new". >>- Did you have to sign any statement re: validity of copyrights? > > Not to be rude, Tilman, but I am finished talking on this >subject. Privacy is a luxury, which to this point in my life, I >have not been fortunate enough to enjoy. Perhaps this would be a >healthy time for me to assert such boundaries. > > But (ever the inFormer) to answer your question, >you will not be seeing some new, ugly face of Dennis Erlich. The >old one was quite bad enough, thanks. I don't understand the answer. I did not talk or ask about photographs. My question was whether you have to admit that you consider the scientology copyrights valid, or that you won't challenge them again, etc. The core of the defense in the Erlich case was to claim that scientology doesn't have valid copyrights. >>- Did you have to sign any other statements, especially about other >>critics? > > I have scrupulously intended not to harm anyone, and I >believe I have not. I made no admissions or concessions other >than the ones which others may access at the San Jose Federal >Court and are welcome to publish. > > As a side note, it is unlikely that I can be counted on >to read and/or respond to anything that is not sent to one of my >email addressess. Does this mean you will no longer read ars / irc? >>- Do you receive any payment? > > . Is this a "no" or a "no answer"? >>- Do you still owe money to MoFo? > > No. But the Dennis Erlich Defence Fund is still about >$50-110K in the red. I can get the exact figure for you if >you're really interested. Yes... >>thanks for answering > > No problem. Feel free to let others know this. Does this mean I can publish the response to ars? Tilman ======== To: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Subject: Re: settlement questions From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 23:26:11 GMT -------- you wrote: >>>- Will the full text of the settlement ever be published? >> The court order will be published, of this I am certain. >>There is nothing else to publish. >Does this mean the settlement text is confidential, or that the court >order *is* identical to the settlement and that there is nothing else? What was that second choice again? >>>- Has scientology agreed to stop spreading any allegations about you, >>>and to remove such allegations from the web? >> Since the disputes between us have been settled to our >>mutual satisfaction, I would expect so. >I wouldn't expect too much from THEM... while they removed the SPC >sites, That discussion is over. If anything changes, I'll let everyone know. > http://www.theta.com/goodman/crime.htm > http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol2704/crime2.htm I have not looked at these sites. If they involve me, I would expect them to be gone very soon. >is still available. And I expect of course another freedom magazine >article on the topic. I will not know or care. >>>- Are you forced to stop speaking about scientology in the future? >> I have certainly not been forced into anything. >Let me rephrase this. May you speak about scientology in the future if >you wish so, or is there any contract preventing this? I am free to speak out as I wish. >>>- Why did you take down http://www.informer.org ? >> I'm redoing the site. There's nothing at all sinister >>going on, Tilman. I intend to sublimate the ministry a bit. I >>think focusing on and giving exposure to that area of the >>ministry's work which can reach the most people with the purest >>message, is best. And that's what the ministry will be shooting >>for in the future. >I am not persuaded by that explanation. There's not more to it. >For example, newspapers do also >change their site design/concept often. But they don't take the whole >site down for days. I'm dealing with some personal issues. If I'm not dealing with my affairs to your satisfaction, you have my sincere apology. I'm doing the best I can. >It simply suddenly appears "all new". It is a whole new thing not to be engaged in conflict. >>>- Did you have to sign any statement re: validity of copyrights? >> Not to be rude, Tilman, but I am finished talking on this >>subject. Privacy is a luxury, which to this point in my life, I >>have not been fortunate enough to enjoy. Perhaps this would be a >>healthy time for me to assert such boundaries. >> But (ever the inFormer) to answer your question, >>you will not be seeing some new, ugly face of Dennis Erlich. The >>old one was quite bad enough, thanks. >I don't understand the answer. I did not talk or ask about photographs. I was speaking figuratively, Tilman. >My question was whether you have to admit that you consider the >scientology copyrights valid, or that you won't challenge them again, >etc. What I have admitted (stipulated to, more accurately) is in the order Whyte will have signed by now, I trust. I don't have a copy handy or I would quote it to you. But it is available at the San Jose federal courthouse. >The core of the defense in the Erlich case was to claim that >scientology doesn't have valid copyrights. No. You are misinFormed. And I don't care to discuss the legal strategy (if any) used in a now successfully settled dispute. >>>- Did you have to sign any other statements, especially about other >>>critics? >> I have scrupulously intended not to harm anyone, and I >>believe I have not. I made no admissions or concessions other >>than the ones which others may access at the San Jose Federal >>Court and are welcome to publish. >> As a side note, it is unlikely that I can be counted on >>to read and/or respond to anything that is not sent to one of my >>email addressess. >Does this mean you will no longer read ars / irc? I wouldn't count on it. >>>- Do you receive any payment? >> . >Is this a "no" or a "no answer"? It is what it is. >>>- Do you still owe money to MoFo? >> No. But the Dennis Erlich Defence Fund is still about >>$50-110K in the red. I can get the exact figure for you if >>you're really interested. >Yes... I'll check into it. >>>thanks for answering >> No problem. Feel free to let others know this. >Does this mean I can publish the response to ars? Whatever you see fit to do with what I've told you is fine with me, Tilman. Be well, Dennis ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Statement by Dennis Erlich? From: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 18:07:00 GMT -------- Here my comments / conclusions on Dennis Erlich's answers: 1. It is very likely that money has changed hands, in the direction of Dennis. This explains his non-answer. 2. I assume that Dennis and RTC made a "soft" agreement. They gave him the money, and said that they wouldn't "fair game" him as long as he won't make trouble. 3. As one ars regular e-mailed me, the real loser here is MoFo. A lawfirm doesn't get media attention for settling. They get media attention for winning in court, and winning big. Pro bono cases are taken by big firms to *show* the great work a firm can do, and less because "they are so nice". While all of *us* would certainly hire MoFo for our problems, none of the general public knows what a great work they did. 4. Surprising is that the DE defence fund is in the red. Either the money Dennis got is low, or his answer is a trick answer, i.e. *he* hasn't paid them yet but he could. 5. I wish Dennis Erlich good luck in his "new" life. Tilman -- 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 1998 pictures: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4497/clearwater/ Los Angeles 1998 pictures: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4497/losangeles1998/ Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html