On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:42:46 -0400, Mike O'Connor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith Henson) wrote:
>> The grounds for this motion are that defendant Henson has made
>> postings to the Internet that contain matters infringing RTC's
>> copyrights in NOTs 56 and in NOTs 34, the same work for which he was
>> previously adjudicated as liable for copyright infringement in
>> the action in which he was also previously held in contempt by this
>> Court for posting a sealed transcript with portions of the work to the
>NOTs 56, HaHaHaHa! That's rich.
>NOTs 34, that's the document titled THE SEQUENCE FOR HANDLING A
>PHYSICAL CONDITION. Yes, it tells cult auditors how, in violation of
>law, to use the E-Meter to help diagnose, treat, cure, and prevent
>physical illness. At least, that's my opinion, that's it's in violation
>of law. And I'll explain why I think that below.
Great analysis. I think I will include it with my letter to Judge Whyte.
Some people have argued I should do nothing and let Judge Whyte issue a contempt citation in this "travesty" then use the obvious abuse to my advantage before the Refugee Board.
Here is a draft letter to Judge Whyte. Comments welcome.
Dear Judge Whyte:
I call your attention to fraud on the court in the latest RTC motion for contempt.
The permanent injunction specifically permits "fair use." The title and three lines of NOTs 34 in the context of reposting my original letter to you is clearly fair use. Further, the letter with the same three lines has been on a prominent web site since shortly after it was written with no RTC complaints about it. The web site I pointed people towards to read the rest of NOTs 34 is also fair use since the fragments of NOTs 34 are enclosed in a much longer document analyzing it. It too has been up without RTC copyright complaints for years. In any case, I am not responsible for it. I think it is obvious RTC's contempt complaint is baseless and a fraud on the court.
The other part of the complaint, line 27, page 1 of the Motion, " . . . infringing RTC's copyright in NOTs 56 . . ." is an even worse fraud on the court, as is the entire "Sealed" McShane declaration. You may take this as a request to unseal it, since *every single one* of the exhibits attached are either public court records or public postings still available on the Internet.
The fraud in claiming infringement on NOTs 56 is that RTC has no copyright whatsoever in NOTs 56.
In fact, *I* am the author of NOTs 56.
The last paragraph of Exhibit 13 even explains the origin of NOTs 56.
It is a not particularly successful parody of the NOTs series based on editing the output of a mechanical process using a list of words and frequencies derived from Hubbard's writings. The reason it is not a particularly successful parody is that the NOTs self parody. NOTs 56 reads very much like the real thing, i.e., "just more deluded raving about body thetans" (the first redacted line in exhibit 13). The second pointlessly redacted line is, " 'ridges,' 'clusters, and similar crazy hallucinations about space aliens."
As to why RTC decided to do this now? I believe it is in retaliation for an amicus brief I filed in the Lisa McPherson case. I have attached a copy without the lengthy exhibits. The exhibits (if you want to see them) can be found in a posting of the final draft (with the exhibit URLs) of that letter I made on June 18, 2002. You can get to this posting through Google Groups.
As I pointed out in the amicus brief/letter to Judge Schaeffer, the reputation of the courts in the US is being ruined by the wide spread perception of how easy it is for them to be manipulated by Scientology into an instrument of punishment for those Scientology has decided are their enemies. People ruined this way number in the scores.
Signed under penalty of perjury.
H. Keith Henson