> Again, it has *nothing* to do with whether or not the "victims" (meaning
> the perpetrators of this criminal manufacturing of evidence against
> Keith) have a "belief" in the policies of the organization, it has to do
> with the fact that the policies of the organization *order* the
> *manufacturing* of crimes of "enemies". This is a *manufactured* crime
> developed according to those policies.
> There is a big difference between "religious beliefs" and criminal
> policies that are acted upon. The "beliefs" can be left entirely out
> of the case, the *policies* and *actions* cannot.
Keep in mind that this is a criminal, not civil, case. The procedures and standards of evidence are different. IANAL, so I'm not sure how much, if any, data from the civil cases can be brought into evidence in a criminal trial. Basically, I think all this means is that what's been hashed out and now considered "stipulated" in the civil cases needs to be done fresh in the new arena. Aside from that, if I'm interpreting this thing correctly, as it stands the only option the prosecution has to keep "fair game" out of evidence is to not utter "scientology" (presuming the judge finds those testifying to Fair Game credible as experts). I'm envisioning the dropping duck in Groucho Marx's You Bet Your Life. Would evidence have to be redacted? would the prosecution have to say things like "Entity X" when referring to Co$? They certainly couldn't say "alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY", maybe not even "religion". As a practical matter, I think this means "Fair Game" is going to be admissible.