Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
Mail, articles and comment may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org. Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the net immediately.
Table of Contents for Biased Journalism.
Biased Journalism Volume 2, issue 20 October 9, 1996.
Aircraft toiled through the morning mist. Tinted with the exhalations of a quarter of a million automobiles, it gave a buttery tone to the light. Commuters waited in unmoving lines on the freeways. We had passed these lines on August 2; to our eye, they appeared to be exactly the same cars. Behind the mist the sky was bright blue, streaked with white clouds. It promised to be a hot day.
The courthouse plaza was almost empty. A few hispanic men and women waited outside the Immigration and Nationalization Service. This time entrants were ostentatiously scanned for weapons by uniformed guards. The doors behind them were covered with paper notices taped to the inside of the glass. This lent a faintly sad and scruffy air to the scene.
We successfully passed through the metal detector and proceeded to the fourth floor. At a few minutes after ten, the Judge was hard at work. A solitary netizen lounged on the bench outside the courtroom. On the next bench, church attorneys were gathered in force. Everyone looked upbeat and rested.
Attorney Helena Kobrin wore a navy blue suit in a fabric we guessed as sueded silk with a white blouse, attractively striped in red and peacock blue. The formidable attorney carried a purse in lieu of her usual large briefcase.
Roger Milgrim strolled past, affording us a good view of his blue striped tie and the red handkerchief in his breast pocket. He looked oddly like an usher at a wedding. Eric Lieberman wore a very plain but nicely tailored charcoal gray suit and a forgettable but doubtlessly expensive tie. His round glasses accented his schoolboy air. The lenses were self-tinting and made frequent shifts between clear and black.
As soon as netizens arrived, conversation between the RTC attorneys sank to whispers. Milgrim, Kobrin and McShane stared stonily ahead, ignoring the net.citizens. Lieberman watched the Henson group with fascinated interest, like a small boy at the circus.
The netizens looked back at Lieberman with exactly the same attitude.
Everyone took turns peering through the door, trying to see where the Judge was in his calendar.
There was nothing to do for a moment, so we went over to talk to Eric Lieberman. We were immediately drilled by unfriendly stares from McShane and the attorneys. We introduced ourselves and asked if he remembered us from Keith Henson's deposition. He admitted this, but promptly denied that he had read our article about the deposition. "Do you have email?" we asked hopefully. "No!" [<fweet!>] The other attorneys glared at him. The conversation was not developing as cordially as we had hoped, so we got to what was on our mind. "I understand that a motion was recently filed in the Colorado case in which Biased Journalism was mentioned. Can you tell me anything about this?" "No."
Lieberman counterattacked very quickly. "How do you know about it?"
We mentioned the post Arnie Lerma had recently made to alt.religion.scientology. By now the stares from Kobrin and McShane were very unfriendly.
McShane said, "why don't you have your buddy Larry send it to you?" It took us a moment to realize that he must mean Lawrence Wollersheim. We replied that Lawrence probably did not consider us a friend at the moment. "Well, what about Bob Penny," McShane said nastily. We chose to ignore the tacit invitation to discuss our sources. "If I already had it, I wouldn't be asking you for it," we pointed out reasonably. "Well, we don't know a thing about it," Lieberman said. Everyone else nodded grimly. [We wondered if the motion in Colorado had been sealed. In that case Graham Berry probably had a few words to say to the loquacious Mr. Lerma.] Conversation lagged for a moment.
"I don't suppose you want to give me an interview," we said. They gave us lizard smiles like displeased Narn. "You got that right," McShane said. We looked hopefully back at Lieberman, whose glasses had turned black again. "I would like to represent your point of view."
"I really doubt that," McShane scoffed. "well, let's put it to the test" we proposed. "I would like to interview Mrs. Kobrin." We assured Mrs. Kobrin that she would be well treated, and promised to stay away from legally sensitive issues. Mrs. Kobrin said sadly that she did not trust us. We said we hoped she would change her mind.
Keith Henson had arrived, looking cheerful and distinguished in a navy blue suit. Under his arm he carried a brightly colored cardboard envelope. It proved to be an overnight airmail folder from Sweden. (About which, more anon) A few more netizens strolled in.
RTC attorney Tom Hogan greeted Henson cordially. He wore his usual gray suit, but looked rested. Whatever had gone wrong for RTC before the previous hearing, causing them all to look tired and surly, had not happened this time.
Without ceremony, everyone suddenly piled into the courtroom.
The room was almost empty. Roger Milgrim was already at the large counsel table to the left. A tall, lean man in an impeccable white shirt and conservative tie was fussing with some papers at the table, his face completely intent on his job. He brushed against a two-foot-tall stack of manila folders; the top third slid off the table. "Now I've done it" he said gloomily. He looked familiar. A clerk rushed over to pick up the files. We realized that this was the Judge.
Henson, Hogan, Kobrin, the Judge, Lieberman, Milgrim and a few clerks sat down at the table. This discussion was to be off the record; the court reporter would be summoned later to nail down whatever was agreed to.
Judge Whyte began briskly. He started with the RTC expedited motion to clarify or modify the Preliminary Injuction. Mr. Henson has filed papers in this too. I have the impression that you don't have a dispute, the Judge says hopefully.
Tom Hogan puffs up slightly like a disturbed cat. He complains that Henson has, in effect, switched signals. Henson wanted to take the entirety of NOTs 34 to the FDA. He, Hogan, pleaded with Henson not to do this, or to take only parts of the NOTs. [In the background, Eric Lieberman looks acutely unhappy.]
Whyte: is it an issue between you, or not?
Henson says he will agree to an injunction if his wording is accepted. Hogan mutters something to the effect that he will agree as long as his language is accepted.
Whyte looks at the parties doubtfully. "Is this something that you're agreeing to? If there is language that both parties agree to-" ['This is wierd,' we can see the Judge thinking, 'but if they want to go ahead with it ...'] But the Judge is a conscientious man. The issue cannot be swept under the rug. He turns to Henson and explains that Henson would have various options under Hogan's proposed language; the language Henson is proposing is broader.
It is hard to find out what the real issue is, the Judge says, because the parties want to make things difficult for the other side. The Judge wants to find out what the real issue is and get it settled. Having said this, he waits to see if someone will tell him. Everyone stares back unhelpfully. 'This is a fight,' their body language says, 'and we couldn't care less about the details.'
Henson picks the moment to say that he will agree to an injunction that says he cannot turn over the NOTs to anyone.
The Judge fixes Henson with an icy glare. If what you mean for me to do is, I agree to an order that I know is illegal, and I want you, Judge, to enter it--I won't have any part of that.
The Judge's cold rage is impressive. The attorneys curl slightly at the edges, but Henson looks back calmly. He does not look contrite. After a bit the Judge instructs Henson to notify him prior to giving the NOTs to the FDA.
Hogan uses his turn to complain. Mr. Henson has made it clear from the beginning that he is simply doing this for entertainment; his expenses come out of his entertainment budget; he thinks it's "a hoot"... obviously no lawyer would ever behave like this. Sanctions should be awarded, payable to the Court.
Whyte: do it under the proper rules. You should make a separate motion on that.
Hogan: [obsequiously] absolutely right.
Henson: [meaningfully] me, too.
The Judge whisks through a series of problems. With respect to discovery issues, application must be made through Magistrate Judge Infante. The request to modify the injunction to remove reference to trade secrets should be noticed on the calendar, or else a time should be set at which he could file a response. [We think it is Henson's motion and Hogan's response.]
They arrive at the request of the church to take Henson's deposition. Theoretically he should be deposed only once, in a group of related cases. Henson has already been deposed in the Ward case. [Biased Journalism V2no10] Speaking for RTC, Roger Milgrim backtracks quickly. He explains that they only need to make the information in the existing deposition available in the current case; will Henson agree?
Henson says he will agree provided that Grady agrees.
A discovery conference is set on the 21st; this will be held before Judge Infante.
Lieberman's glasses are clear again.
Now Henson pulls his surprise. He remarks that he has something to file with the court. "This is a copy of NOTS 34, from a publicly available file in Sweden." The Judge looks startled. The RTC attorneys look shocked and furious.
Judge Whyte accepts the document gingerly, as if it is a new type of letter bomb. "Have you seen this? Do you want a copy?" he says to RTC. Yes indeed, most definitely, the RTC lawyers want a copy. Lieberman, his glasses phasing again, sounds cheerful. Milgrim sounds menacing.
The Judge declares that the document will be filed under seal. Milgrim tries to argue the trade secrets issue again, but Whyte reminds him that he is off topic and anyway, if something is not a secret, it is not a secret.
Milgrim: we do not believe that is a public document.
Whyte (to Henson): was it unsolicited?
WHyte: can anyone get it?
Henson: from Zenon, presumptively.
Whyte: no, my question was, can anyone get this for a fee?
Milgrim (suppressively): An individual filed some documents that were placed by the Court of Appeals under seal-
Judge Whyte: so this was obtained before it was filed under seal?
Milgrim tells the Judge that the copy is unauthorized and the document is not available in Sweden; a person broke an injunction to file the document with Parliament. He says he has a declaration to file. [see 2. Declaration of Warren McShane] Then he says he wants the envelope--Henson's overseas air letter--seized. It may contain evidence [of a dastardly crime].
Henson shrugs. Milgrim picks up the envelope, then glares at Henson. "There's something missing from it, sir." The return address is gone.
Henson: It got sort of trashed in the mail.
Milgrim (deeply sarcastic): Oh, really.
Milgrim asks the Judge if he can have the envelope. "If he wants to give it to you," Whyte says. "Sure," Henson says.
Milgrim launches into a story. He explains to the Judge that the material provided by Henson is in violation of an existing court order in Sweden. Without actually calling it a conspiracy, he suggests that Henson is involved.
Judge Whyte is unfazed. "Take it up in the discovery conference," he says briskly. [For a moment we wonder whether he has something against Judge Infante.]
In the background, Eric Lieberman looks relieved. At one or two moments during the preceding discussion he has looked, briefly, acutely unhappy.
Henson is now talking about the huge burden he must bear in his case. He has to show the criminal nature of the church of scientology. "-that we are dealing with a criminal conspiracy..."
Judge Whyte [recoiling]: but that has nothing to do with this case.
Henson: it's the justification for posting what I posted.
Whyte: remind me what you posted.
Henson: NOTs 34. (He remarks on the worldwide nature of the conspiracy.)
Whyte: can't you determine criminality by looking at the document?
Henson: this is just one facet of an extremely large amount of criminal activity.
Whyte: well, your defense with regard to posting NOTS 34 would presumably be 1) your argument that it's not a trade secret; and 2) that the posting was fair use. What else is there?
Henson responds that you can do things that are marginal, where the public good is involved. Whyte replies that that is covered under fair use.
Henson: but to show that it is fair use, I have to show the criminal nature of the church of scientology.
Henson wants to expedite discovery. Judge Whyte, looking unhappy, refuses to oblige Henson by delaying the trial. The schedule calls for a trial in May. He sees no reason to delay it. The trial will begin on May 26th unless Henson has a conflict. Henson says that he will go along with this if Judge Whyte will support him in his discovery efforts.
Whyte explains that discovery will be handled by Magistrate Judge Infante. An issue can be brought to Judge Whyte if either side feels that Infante has made an error of judgment.
Milgrim steps in. He wants to fiddle with the schedule, and Whyte refers him to Infante.
Tom Hogan asks for a court order. He wants Whyte to order Henson and RTC to settle [this apparently concerns the wording of the Injunction]. Whyte says that he will order Judge Infante to discuss the issue.
The Judge then administers, in short form, a lecture he has given several time before. To Hogan, and RTC in general, he says: "you have to be very conscious regarding sensitivity--you have 1, 2, 3, 4 lawyers and Mr. Henson there representing himself." Magistrate Judge Infante of course tries to monitor the situation, but "you should be aware that it can seem intimidating." We need good faith on both sides. Settle in a way both of you can live with, the Judge enjoins. [He is saying plainly that he does not want Henson to be pressured into a settlement by RTC attorneys.]
Roger Milgrim mutters indistinctly. In reply, the Judge refers to the exchange between Grady Ward and Tom Henson during Ward's deposition, without actually mentioning Ward. He does not want anything of the kind to happen in Henson's case.
The court reporter, a strikingly pretty young woman, takes a chair. The Judge rattles off the agreements so far; with regard to the schedule [discovery cutoff and trial date], RTC has agreed and Henson has some difficulty, but the Judge insists on maintaining the schedule. There is a pending motion by RTC to modify the language in the existing injunction regarding the distribution of NOTS to the FDA. Henson has a disagreement with this. The judge doesn't want any party agreeing unless they feel it's want they want to do. Do you agree [to modify the language]? Yes, everyone says. With respect to the deposition, RTC says it has no desire to retake the deposition with respect to any activity on or before the date of the deposition, if it can use the deposition that was given in the Ward case. Henson agrees, provided that Grady Ward also agrees.
Henson says he wants to modify the preliminary injunction to remove any reference to trade secrets. Whyte wants to decide the issue based upon submissions he already has, but grants Henson the right to reply to RTC's reply. At this point Milgrim intervenes. He complains that Hensons's style of litigation is eccentric and unpredicitable. Milgrim wants to reserve the right to reply to Henson's reply.
Judge Whyte reminds Milgrim that it is Henson's motion, so Henson gets the last say. If he does something that you consider really outrageous, the Judge goes on, you can apply to make a reply but I won't necessarily find in your favor.
Documents purportedly from Sweden, to be filed under seal, the Judge says quickly. After some haggling the trial date is set for early June of 1997.
The Judge comes to his notes, "#5. no copies;" I can't remember what this is. Does it sound familiar to anyone? No? Let's move on.
Henson complains that RTC has applied to place restrictions upon his reading and other handling of the masked NOTS, which were originally supplied to him without any conditions.
"I haven't read this yet," Judge Whyte replies.
Roger Milgrim: he will have full access to a sealed copy. He doesn't need to use computers and various methods to [try to reconstitute the NOTS from the masked copies]. [The word "internet," pronounced with loathing, occurs in his discourse.] He reserves the right to come back in under the rules of the court to combat infringement, violations of the court order ... Milgrim's words trail off, but his tone insinuates "...and other acts of depravity which would only occur to an Internet habitue like this defendant..."
Tom Hogan waits for Milgrim to run down, and then reminds the judge about the settlement. The Judge agrees to order Magistrate Judge Infante to have the parties discuss a settlement, but he does not actually order the parties to settle, as Hogan wants.
Discussion now turns to Grady Ward, who has not appeared for his hearing. Arrangements had been made for a telephone conference, but the clerk states that Ward's number has been busy. She has been unable to reach him. The Judge remarks that he was doing Ward a favor by allowing the telephone conference; now Ward may or may not get a hearing before the Judge makes a decision.
This is it. Without ceremony everyone gets up and leaves. The court reporter brings Henson a floppy disk containing the transcript of the August 2 hearing. The court has entered the 20th century.
Keith Henson and his friends repaired to a restaurant to discuss the events of the day. A netizen telephoned Grady Ward, who was surprised and disappointed that the call from the courtroom did not go through. He had been waiting all morning for it. His line had been clear. This mystery is as yet unexplained.
The high point of the hearing was the squabble over the envelope. Henson laughed about it over lunch.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, ) No. C-96 20271 RMW a California non-profit corporation; ) ) DECLARATION OF WARREN Plaintiff, ) MCSHANE ) V. ) Date: October 4, 1996 ) Time: 10:30 a.m. H. KEITH HENSON, an individual ) Hon: Ronald M. Whyte ) Defendant. ) )I, Warren McShane, hereby declare:
1. 1 am the President of Plaintiff, Religious Technology Center. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. If called upon, I could and would testify competently to these facts.
2. Late Thursday afternoon, October 3, 1996, I was advised that Mr. Henson stated to RTC's counsel, Thomas R. Hogan, that NOTs 34 and other NOTs materials were readily available in Sweden, from a public source. Mr. Henson stated that these materials had been provided to Parliament.
3. I have personal knowledge of current developments in Sweden concerning NOTS, Commencing in late August 1996, until late in September, I was present and daily supervised litigation against a Swedish citizen. A Swedish Court found that individual had wrongfully posted a large number of NOTs issues on the Internet. The Court enjoined him and ordered a seizure, which was promptly executed.
4. In violation of the Court's injunction, the Swedish defendant filed a copy of the NOTs issues in the Court file. RTC immediately moved to place the documents under seal. The Court, however, initially declined to place the documents under seal. That decision was immediately appealed to the Swedish Court of Appeals. It promptly ordered sealing of the unpublished works in controversy, and has explicitly denied access to them to all third parties. While granting access to the defendant at the courthouse for the purposes of his defense, the Court of Appeals has expressly denied him the right to copy them. The trial court, thus instructed by the Court of Appeals, has also sealed these documents in its file.
5. I learned in the past several days that the Swedish defendant, in violation of the Injunction, caused a copy of NOTs and the exhibits to the Fishman declaration (with which the Court is familiar) to be lodged with the Clerk of the Swedish Parliament. That copy was removed in about a day, seemingly by a person within the Parliament. The Clerk has advised our Swedish lawyers that no one accessed it or made copies.
6. Shortly thereafter, the Swedish Defendant, again in violation of the Court's order, filed another set of these documents with the Clerk of Parliament. I have been advised by our counsel that the Clerk will permit limited access to the document, but will not permit any copying. RTC has filed a Writ in Parliament to seal.
7. Since the current filing with the Clerk, at my request, parishioners have been at the Clerk's office, and I am advised that no unauthorized person has accessed it.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Jose, California the 3rd day of October 1996.
Now for Zenon's comments:
3. ... A Swedish Court found that individual had wrongfully posted a large number of NOTs issues on the Internet. The Court enjoined him and ordered a seizure, which was promptly executed.The court found nothing of the sort. In a preliminary decision, taken without my hearing, the court forbade me to infringe upon RTC's copyright and ordered the preliminary taking into custody of such material that the RTC has copyright to. Later the court of appeals modified the latter ruling, stating explicitly that *not all material to which the RTC owns the copyright, but only such material that infringes in that copyright, is to be kept in custody. The difference is that I am permitted to have the material for personal and other use permitted by copyright law and the ordinance on the freedom of press (OFP), while editions of the same material, numbers of identical copies intended for distribution, are to remain in custody pending a ruling in the case.
In any case, it is worth noting that the rulings forbid infringement, which is a legal term open to later judgement, rather that forbid a factual act, such as the distribution of the NOTs. The courts have therefore done little more than repeat the text of statute; they have pronounced hardly any opinion on whether my copying and/or distribution of the NOTs actually constitutes an infringement or not.
4. In violation of the Court's injunction, the Swedish defendant filed a copy of the NOTs issues in the Court file.My filing of them violated in no way any injunction. McShame is making legal assertions and interpretations of Swedish law that he is hardly competent to make.
RTC immediately moved to place the documents under seal. The Court, however, initially declined to place the documents under seal. That decision was immediately appealed to the Swedish Court of Appeals. It promptly ordered sealing of the unpublished works in controversy, and has explicitly denied access to them to all third parties.This is correct, except for the word "unpublished". It is not to the witness to judge what is published or not.
While granting access to the defendant at the courthouse for the purposes of his defense, the Court of Appeals has expressly denied him the right to copy them.This is a direct lie. The court of appeals has granted me one copy, which was sent to my lawyer. The decision does not contain any restrictions on the use of that document, leaving me free to show it, lend it to or give it away to any other person as I may please, although--notably--the court had the ability to place such restrictions on me according to the law on secrecy.
The trial court, thus instructed by the Court of Appeals, has also sealed these documents in its file.The trial court (I assume he means the primary court) cannot legally be instructed by the court of appeals. On the contrary, in its decision of RTC's appeal on the matter of secrecy on September 13th, the court of appeals clearly stated that there exists no such thing as an a priori sealing and that a separate decision on secrecy is to be made by the authority that has a document every time a request for the document is made. The primary court will decide the secrecy issue anew every single time it receives a request for a copy and the decision will be based on all relevant facts, including the fact that the parliament is handing out copies of the same document.
5. I learned in the past several days that the Swedish defendant, in violation of the Injunction, caused a copy of NOTs and the exhibits to the Fishman declaration (with which the Court is familiar) to be lodged with the Clerk of the Swedish Parliament.Legal assertations again. I delivered a legal copy of the NOTs (i.e. a copy made by the primary court, which breaks every previous chain of possible unlawfulness and which can be handled freely according to OFP) to the parliament, an act that does not constitute any violation of anything.
That copy was removed in about a day, seemingly by a person within the Parliament. The Clerk has advised our Swedish lawyers that no one accessed it or made copies.McShame is lying. The parliament received the NOTs on September 20th and lost them on September 30th. A large number of copies was produced and handed out in this while; among others, all major Stockholm newspapers have ordered, received and paid for a copy each. I received such a copy myself, that is now in circulation and a number of individuals ordered and received copies as well.
Besides, the parliament's copy was not "removed", it was STOLEN.
6. Shortly thereafter, the Swedish Defendant, again in violation of the Court's order, filed another set of these documents with the Clerk of Parliament. I have been advised by our counsel that the Clerk will permit limited access to the document, but will not permit any copying. RTC has filed a Writ in Parliament to seal.Two days after the theft I delivered a new copy, again without violating any court orders. The parliament has promptly been copying ever since. Seven members of the parliament have requested and received copies and I myself requested and received a copy of this "second edition". Also, the newspaper Aftonbladet published the fact that the NOTs are available at the parliament, causing quite a rush of individuals asking for and receiving copies. RTC may file whatever writs they want, but they have no formal standing as a party in the issue of secrecy vs publicity of the document in question.
7. Since the current filing with the Clerk, at my request, parishioners have been at the Clerk's office, and I am advised that no unauthorized person has accessed it.The "parishioners" went there and delivered their "What is Scientology" and other glossy material, causing the clerk some mild irritation. The Fishman tactic of creating a scieno queue to the documents in order to prevent others from seing them does not work here. An authority is under obligation to meet the demand of access to public documents, so if the scienos create a queue, they will only force the parliament to make still more copies, so that everybody can read them.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.He declares shit. Hearsay and evaluations, that's all that he declares. He declares that others have told him this or that and he declares his own interpretations of Swedish law. Does he go down for perjury if it is proven that his interpretations were anything but true and correct?
He also omits the fact, known to him by now, that not only the parliament has and hands out copies of the NOTs. Your [Keith Henson's] own copy of #34 comes from the Chancellor of Justice, who is also making copies to the public, a fact proven by your own copy. And still more authorities are making copies, each one of them making it increasingly harder for all the others to ever seal this document.
Only hours after I read McShame's statement did I realize that he just gave himself away with it.
This is what he wrote:
5. I learned in the past several days that the Swedish defendant, in violation of the Injunction, caused a copy of NOTs and the exhibits to the Fishman declaration (with which the Court is familiar) to be lodged with the Clerk of the Swedish Parliament.Until the late evening of Friday 27th September, when I posted in ars the news that the NOTs where in the parliament, neither McShame nor any other scientologist had the faintest idea about it. At the time of my posting the parliament was closed and did not re-open until the morning of Monday 30th September. When the scieno delegation arrived there and requested to see the document, it was discovered that the document was missing. Thus, the official scieno delegation never got to see it before the theft.
I wander now how the hell can McShame know with such accuracy what that document contained, if neither he nor any of his people ever saw it. Did the thief act on McShame's orders? Did the thief hand over the stolen document to McShame? Or did the thief just refer the stolen document to McShame over the phone?
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.To be translated to
I solemnly declare that I have either commited perjury or been an accessory to theft, or both, under the laws of the United States as well as under those of Sweden.Z
3. Letters to the Editor: Helena Kobrin responds to our
Dear Ms. Thomson,
I have seen your message posting the Lerma decision in spite of knowing that there was an existing court order sealing the decision and the e-mail to you from SRCS@aol.com, asking you to issue a cancel for this posting.
It is outrageous that you would post a sealed document in spite of being on notice of a court order sealing that document. Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an injunctive order is binding upon the parties, as well as those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." Please confirm that you have actually cancelled the postings containing the order.
So you understand, RTC's attorneys are pleased with the order, and the sealing request, which was only for three sentences of the order, was made because of certain inaccurate statements which we have brought to the Court's attention. We anticipate that it will be perfectly permissible to circulate the revised order once the Court rules on our request.
-------------The email message referenced by Ms. Kobrin arrived earlier:
From SRCS@aol.com Wed Oct 9 14:58:53 1996 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:50:11 -0400 From: SRCS@aol.com To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: **Biased Journalism** V2no19 Lerma Decision: RTC Lawyers Humiliated! References: Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing, nl.scientologyFrom: email@example.com (shelley thomson)
As you state in the above referenced you understood the Lerma Decision was sealed by the court. Despite this knowledge you posted copies to four Usenet newsgroups.
I ask you to immediately issue a cancel for this post. And further, if you forwarded it to others please ask them erase/destroy any copies giving as the reason the fact that the court had ordered the document sealed.
I would respectfully ask that you also do the same with whomever sent it to you.
A Concerned Parishioner,
-------------Here's what Attorney Kobrin is complaining about.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A
ARNALDO PAGLIARINI LERMA,
This motion addresses a total of three sentences--all of which are in a background portion of the Opinion, and thus not integral to the Court's analysis--which purport to discuss or refer to beliefs of the Scientology religion. Two of those sentences are at page 2, lines 11-16, beginning with the words "Scientologists believe." The few words are contained in the first sentence of the next paragraph, namely "through the creation of 'free zones."' The one additional sentence is at page 7, lines 11-13. The discussion and references contained in those sentences are prejudicial to RTC because (a) they make references to information which is a part of the trade secrets at issue in this case; (b) while they purport to state the religious beliefs of Scientologists, they incorrectly state those beliefs, and irrespective of trade secret status, they are unpublished works the context of which the owner has never permitted to be published.
Specifically, RTC requests that the Court delete the language set forth above, which is unnecessary to the Court's decision. Alternatively, the Court should not distribute the decision as currently worded, but rather, pending resolution of RTC's appeal on the trade secret issues, that the Court redact the three sentences referenced above with asterisks or some other notation so that a misrepresentationof RTC's beliefs is not circulated and RTC's appeal of its trade secret claim is not compromised.
This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities submitted herewith. It is filed ex parte in light of the urgency of dealing with the requested relief.
Notice is being furnished simultaneously to defendant Arnaldo Lerma.
Religious Technology Center
By counsel J. FREDERICK SINCLAIR, P.C.
910 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22304
Helena K. Kobrin 7629 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 905