In an attempt to create an illusion of facts tying CAN to this event, Appellee mischaracterizes CAN's involvement with Ms. Landa and Mr. Ross, and alleges the existence of an 'unofficial' CAN policy condoning illegal, involuntary deprogrammings. Appellee asserts that Ms. Landa acted as CAN's agent merely because (1) she was a co-founder of the Citizen's Freedom Network, a predecessor organization to CAN, and (2) because she was furthering CAN's alleged 'unofficial' policy supporting illegal deprogramming. Other than Dr. Shupe's rank speculation, no testimonial or documentary evidence even hints at such a policy.

Some cults have therefore established healing centers, notably designed to drug addicts, arguing of difficulties and among others, inadequacies of official healings of such addicts, an example of this is the Narconon's centers of scientology.

A neighbor whose daughter attend Pacific Union had the pleasure of seeing the Arcata Police Department escort a private investigator who was 'staking' out our Vassaide neighborhood a few weeks ago."

I have just learned that the same 'Michelle Janney' has used the U.S. Mails to send what she describes as 'pornography' unsolicited to a mailing list of Arcata homes and businesses. I will be making an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order Monday and of course I will immediately contact the Postal Inspector and the US Attorney's office."

The envelope had a typed or computer-generated return address label from CYBER, 1970 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612. The postmark was San Francisco. The 'Letterhead' is CYBER, CYBERSPACE YOUTH BASIC EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES, 1970 Broadway, Oakland, California 94612, mjanney@interworld.net.

"I opened a letter from the court assigning new dates for the case. I will scan it in, but the trial is put off to Dec. 1, 1997 Considering the other legal hot water CoS is in, there might well be no RTC by that time."

"[P]laintiff's opposition demonstrates by the selective arguments and additional exhibits that plaintiff's original motion for summary judgment did not disclose to the Court or defendant all the facts upon which plaintiff bases their claim to 'ownership' of the right to sue over purported copyright violation of the NOTs 34.

[F]rom memory of the testimony of that deposition, David Miscavige was unable to state if the original of Exhibit E was extant, or what the numbers in the upper right corner of that document represented, or whose signatures are affixed to the document. Considering that this document purports to transfer assets (eventually appraised in aggregate at $25 million) from the non-profit CSC to an individual, the question of inurement arises and the legal validity of the assignment itself may in question.

With respect to the matter of misinformation on copyright certificates: 'the courts have generally adopted the position that omissions or misrepresentations in a copyright application can render the registration invalid. The a common element among them has been intentional or purposeful concealment of relevant information. Where this element of 'scienter' is lacking, courts generally have upheld the copyright.'

Defendant notes that the letters DM have been blacked out of the credit line on the masked versions of the NOTs documents submitted to the Copyright Office just as carefully as 'BT'. This action on the part of RTC indicates to defendant that either DM (David Mayo) was a trade secret, or there was a purposeful attempt by RTC to conceal relevant copyright information."

"The church's first loss came in Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.NET Inc. The Religious Technology Center, or RTC sought to enjoin Internet postings or excerpts from highly confidential unpublished church documents known as Advanced Technology works. The defendants posted a newsgroup message by Arnold Lerma, a F.A.C.T.NET director, endorsing Internet publication of Advanced Technology materials. The Colorado court denied the injunction, finding no likelihood of success on the RTC's copyright claim. It found that F.A.C.T.NET's use had been nonpublic and noncommercial, observed that no evidence had been presented on the effect on the potential market for the works, and that it could not make third factor 'amount and substantiality' comparisons because the RTC had declined to introduce the entire Advanced Technology works into evidence.

Mr. Lerma himself was the defendant in a second action the RTC filed arising out of the same Internet publication of Advanced Technology documents. In preliminary skirmishing, the RTC obtained a temporary restraining order against Mr. Lerma and his Internet access provider, along with an order to seize his computer and floppy disks. When the RTC learned that Mr. Lerma had provided a copy of the Advanced Technology documents to the Washington Post, it advised the newspaper that the documents might have been stolen. When the Post included a few brief quotations from the documents in an article about the RTC's lawsuit against Mr. Lerma, the RTC added the Post and its reporters as defendants, and sought injunctive relief against them as well.

Once again the RTC came out on the losing end of the fair use analysis, conducted to determine likelihood of success on the RTC's copyright infringement claim. Indeed, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema found that all four fair use factors favored the defendants, concluding that the purpose of the Post's use constituted news reporting and research; that only a 'minute portion' of the Advanced Technology works had been quoted; and that it was doubtful that these scant quotations could have any significant negative effect on the market value of the works.

The Scientologists have also had mixed results on fair use in the third case they filed following publication of Advanced Technology documents on the Internet, this time by Dennis Erlich, 'a former Scientology minister turned vocal critic of the Church.' Along with Mr. Erlich, the church named the the California operator of his bulletin board service, or BBS, and Netcom. which provides that service with Internet access. All of the defendants had ignored the RTC's demands to cease and desist, and large portions of Advanced Technology works were made available on the 'Net.

In his first opinion, ruling on injunctive relief against Mr. Erlich, Judge Whyte gave considerable, though not dispositive, weight to the unpublished nature of the RTC's materials. He reviewed the pre-amendment treatment of this factor in the 2d Circuit, explained that the 1992 amendment rejected the notion of a per se rule, and cited to a portion of the House Report that construed Harper & Row as narrowing the amount of permissible copying from unpublished works.

Mr. Erlich had copied from both published and unpublished church documents. Judge Whyte found that the second factor weighed heavily against Erlich for the unpublished works because large portions had been copied. Judge Whyte granted a preliminary injunction against Mr. Erlich on the RTC's copyright claim. Finding that the amount of copying was 'particularly unacceptable' with the unpublished materials and that the margins favoring Mr. Erlich on the first and fourth factors were thin, Judge Whyte held that the RTC's case against fair use 'is even more compelling for the unpublished works.'"

"Second Year Winners: Clearly Platinum, Inc., Indianapolis Veterinary Referral, Kim Bright-Cassano Enterprises, Steinman Champagne, Inc., John M. Susko, D.D.S., U-Test Services Oy, Valko Personal Services.

Third Year Winners: A to B School, AMC Publishing.

The Code of a WISE Member Award: Alan Baker, Peter Buckles.

Special Recognition Award: H. T."

"This person was seeking a refund of money after signing up for a flat fee to go clear ($25,000). S/he did not go clear and in fact claims they kicked him/her out after paying over $50,000.

'I was assaulted by W[ ] K[ ], Ethics Officer. M[ ] S[ ], Secretary, tried to physically force me to stay at the Church of Scientology against my will. She called for W[ ] K[ ] and K[ ] B[ ], a Division 6 Supervisor, to attack me. K[ ] ran off, but W[ ] slammed me repeatedly into the wall in the back of the church for over half an hour. Finally, J[ ] D[ ], a staff member, came in and made her stop.

On or about XXX, J[ ] L[ ], the Academy Supervisor, showed me a silver, semi-automatic pistol, of unknown caliber, that was kept by the church to use on people. He told me 'people had been taken to the dessert and shot because they posed a threat to the church.' My experience with them has made me fear for my life.'"

"The suit was dropped in '96 because the claimant said he/she was not having enough time and money to continue."