Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
Mail, articles and comment may be directed to sthomson@netcom.com. 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.
SCAMIZDAT soon appeared. Under this banner the anonymous author (or authors) published the startling secret beliefs of the church and equally startling internal memoranda. The church embarked upon a frenzied hunt for the perpetrator(s).
Grady Ward made numerous posts to the newsgroup, alternately incisive, witty and vulgar. He lent encouragement to the unknown author of SCAMIZDAT, and made fun of the church's unsuccessful efforts to suppress the publication of its secrets.
These tactics visibly enturbulated the church. Ward's most successful gesture was to devise a nickname for the volatile and fiercely combative church attorney, Helena Kobrin. The nickname ("the 'ho of babble-on") was so embarrassing to the church that attorney Earle Cooley complained about it in court (RTC vs. Lerma), but could not bring himself to speak it into the record.
The Last Straw
SCAMIZDATs continued to appear; Grady Ward continued to issue taunts; the church began to accuse Ward of authoring SCAMIZDAT. Ward relished the attention. On March 6, 1996 he posted a message to ars requesting a "NOTs pack."
[a quick precis for the new reader: the central ritual in the church of scientology involves the use of the e-meter, a form of skin galvanometer (stress detector) in a procedure called "auditing." The auditee takes a firm grip on the cans (contacts of the e-meter); the auditor asks a series of questions and watches for deflections of the needle on the meter. When a deflection is noticed, the line of questioning which provoked it is pursued. The session protocols consist of cleverly formulated lists of emotionally loaded words and statements. It is our understanding that the NOTs--"New Operating Thetan" materials--consist of some advanced auditing protocols. To receive these protocols the scientologist must either pay a very large sum of money or sign an agreement to serve the church for a billion years.]
On March 9, Ward attended a demonstration outside the San Francisco church headquarters. The church had prepared a counter- picket. All of the church signs had Ward's name on them: "Grady Ward, Foe of the Internet," and so forth. [we will have a story about the San Francisco picket soon]
On Friday, March 22 attorney Helena Kobrin <hkk@netcom.com> posted the following message to alt.religion.scientology:
NOTICE TO READERS:
On March 6, 1996, Grady Ward posted a message to the
Internet soliciting a "NOTs pack." In a later posting, Ward
indicated his intention for SCAMIZDAT to post the contents of
that pack to this and the other newsgroups this message has been
cross-posted to. SCAMIZDAT has made similar threats. The
materials known as New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans, or
"NOTs" are confidential, unpublished works, protected by both
copyright and trade secret law.
The purpose of this posting is to inform you that on March
21, 1996 at 5:12 p.m., Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California issued the
following Temporary Restraining Order against Ward and SCAMIZDAT
prohibiting them and anyone in active concert or participation
with them from, among other things, acquiring, reproducing,
displaying these materials. The full text of this Temporary
Restraining Order is below.
Pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure the form and scope of Injunction or Restraining Order
are:
Every order granting an injunction and every
restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its
issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in
reasonable detail, and not by reference to the
complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to
be restrained; and is binding only upon the parties to
the action, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys; and upon those persons in
active concert or participation with them who receive
actual notice of the order by personal service or
otherwise.
By this electronic communication, you are being formally
placed on notice of the above order and its terms. As Ward and
SCAMIZDAT have solicited copies of the NOTs materials, your
attention is specifically called to the fact that the order
specifically prohibits, among other things, the acquisition of
the NOTs materials.
Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
San Jose, CA 95113-2332
(408) 292-7600
Roger M. Milgrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
(212) 318-6000
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
7629 Fulton Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91605
(213) 960-1933
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) CASE NO. 96-20207 RMW
California non-profit )
corporation, ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
) AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
Plaintiff, ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
)
v. )
)
GRADY WARD, an individual, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________)
To Defendant GRADY WARD, his officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and to those persons in active concert
or participation with him, including, but not limited to
SCAMIZDAT:
Upon reading the Complaint on file in this action, the Ex
Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and for Order
to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction, the Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, and the Declarations of Helena K. Kobrin and
Warren McShane and Exhibits in support thereof, it appears to the
satisfaction of this Court that there is good cause, and this is
a proper case, for granting a temporary restraining order.
Pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff has established that it is probable that
plaintiff will prevail at trial on the merits of their claims for
relief against defendant; and
2. There is a likelihood that plaintiff will be
irreparably injured if this temporary restraining order is not
granted; or
3. Plaintiff has raised serious questions; and
4. The balance of hardship tips sharply in plaintiff's
favor in that the hardship to defendant if this temporary
restraining order is granted is outweighed by the hardship to
plaintiff if it is not granted.
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE at 9:00 a.m. on March
29, 1996, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in the
courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, located at 280 South
First Street, San Jose, California 95113, why you, your agents,
servants, employees, partners, privies and attorneys, and all
persons acting or purporting to act under your authority,
direction or control, and all persons in active concert or
participation with you, or acting on your behalf, including, but
not limited to SCAMIZDAT, having advance notice of this Order
should not be enjoined during the pendency of this action from:
1. directly or indirectly, in whole or in part,
publishing, reproducing, distributing, performing, or
creating derivative works based upon the works listed
in Exhibit C to the Complaint, also attached hereto
("Exhibit C Works"), or any of them, in any media now
known or hereafter developed in any time, place or
fashion, and in particular, from engaging in any such
acts in, on, or in connection with any computer,
database, information service, electronic bulletin
board service, network, storage facility, or archives,
or other electronic or computer device, service,
network or facility, including, without limitation, the
transmitting or loading of any such materials onto, or
downloading any copies thereof from any such device,
service, network or facility and that all such copies
which defendant, his agents, servants, employees,
partners, privies, and attorneys and those in active
concert or participation with them have caused to be
copied or copied onto any such device, service,
network, or facility be removed.
2. directly or indirectly, engaging in the further
unauthorized disclosure, or display, of the Exhibit C
Works, or portions thereof (excluding for purposes of
this Order only NOTs Series issues 1, 24, 34, 35, 36
and 42 which are also the subject of other pending
litigation), and specifically from disclosing,
displaying, transmitting or otherwise loading any of
the Advanced Technology materials, or portions thereof,
in any media now known or hereafter developed in any
time, place or fashion, or onto any computer, database,
information service, electronic bulletin board service,
network, storage facility, or archives, or other
electronic or computer device, service, network or
facility and that all such copies which defendant, his
agents, servants, employees, partners, privies, and
attorneys and those in active concert or participation
with them have caused to be copied or copied onto any
such device, service, network, or facility be removed;
3. directly or indirectly, engaging in the further
unauthorized solicitation and/or acquisition, the
Exhibit C Works, or portions thereof (excluding for
purposes of this Order only NOTs Series issues 1, 24,
34, 35, 36 and 42 which are also subject to other
pending litigation), and specifically from soliciting,
acquiring, seeking to acquire, or otherwise downloading
any of the Advanced Technology materials, or portions
thereof (excluding for purposes of this Order only NOTs
Series issues 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42 which are also
subject to other pending litigation), from any media
now known or hereafter developed in any time, place or
fashion, or from any computer, database, information
service, electronic bulletin board service, network,
storage facility, or archives, or other electronic or
computer device, service, network or facility and that
all such copies which defendant, his agents, servants,
employees, partners, privies, and attorneys and those
in active concert or participation with them have
caused to be copied or copied from any such device,
service, network, or facility be removed;
4. directly or indirectly destroying, altering or
concealing, or in any way disposing of, any
reproduction, copy, facsimile, excerpt, or derivative
of any work of L. Ron Hubbard that is in defendant's
possession, custody or control, in whole or in part,
including, but not limited to, those materials located
in any so-called "off-site" storage areas, electronic
or otherwise, or otherwise despoiling or causing the
despoliation, or alteration of any evidence, in whole
or in part, in any form, place or media relating to
defendant's conduct complained of in this action; and
5. causing or inducing any other person to engage in any
of the foregoing prohibited acts; and,
6. filing with the Court, except under seal, any documents
that contain any of the Advanced Technology.
PENDING HEARING on the above Order to Show Cause, you, your
agents, servants, employees, partners, privies and attorneys, and
all persons acting or purporting to act under your authority,
direction or control, and all persons in active concert or
participation with you, or acting on your behalf, including, but
not limited to SCAMIZDAT, having advance notice of this order ARE
HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from:
1. directly or indirectly, in whole or in part,
publishing, reproducing, distributing, performing, or
creating derivative works based upon, the Exhibit C
Works, or any of them, in any media now known or
hereafter developed in any time, place or fashion, and
in particular, from engaging in any such acts in, on,
or in connection with any computer, database,
information service, electronic bulletin board service,
network, storage facility, or archives, or other
electronic or computer device, service, network or
facility, including, without limitation, the
transmitting or loading of any such materials onto, or
downloading any copies of them from any such device,
service, network or facility and that all such copies
which defendant, his agents, servants, employees,
partners, privies, and attorneys and those in active
concert or participation with them have caused to be
copied or copied onto any such device, service,
network, or facility be removed. Nothing in this
paragraph 1 shall be construed to prohibit fair use of
such works, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 107.
2. directly or indirectly, engaging in the further
unauthorized disclosure, or display, of the Exhibit C
Works, or portions thereof (excluding for purposes of
this Order only NOTs Series issues 1, 24, 34, 35, 36
and 42 which are also the subject of other pending
litigation), and specifically from disclosing,
displaying, transmitting or otherwise loading any of
the Advanced Technology materials, or portions thereof
(excluding for purposes of this Order only NOTs Series
issues 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42 which are also the
subject of other pending litigation), in any media now
known or hereafter developed in any time, place or
fashion, or onto any computer, database, information
service, electronic bulletin board service, network,
storage facility, or archives, or other electronic or
computer device, service, network or facility and that
all such copies which defendant, his agents, servants,
employees, partners, privies, and attorneys and those
in active concert or participation with them have
caused to be copied or copied onto any such device,
service, network, or facility be removed. (The fair
use defense is not applicable to this paragraph, as it
is based upon plaintiff's contention that the documents
are protectable as trade secrets.)
3. directly or indirectly, engaging in the further
unauthorized solicitation and/or acquisition, of the
Exhibit C Works, or portions thereof (excluding for
purposes of this Order only NOTs Series issues 1, 24,
34, 35, 36 and 42, which are also the subject of other
pending litigation), and specifically from soliciting,
acquiring, seeking to acquire, or otherwise downloading
any of the Advanced Technology materials, or portions
thereof (excluding for purposes of this Order only NOTs
Series issues 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42 which are also
the subject of other pending litigation), from any
media now known or hereafter developed in any time,
place or fashion, or from any computer, database,
information service, electronic bulletin board service,
network, storage facility, or archives, or other
electronic or computer device, service, network or
facility and that all such copies which defendant, his
agents, servants, employees, partners, privies, and
attorneys and those in active concert or participation
with them have caused to be copied or copied from any
such device, service, network, or facility be removed;
4. directly or indirectly destroying, altering or
concealing, or in any way disposing of, any
reproduction, copy, facsimile, excerpt, or derivative
of any work of L. Ron Hubbard that is in defendant's
possession, custody or control, in whole or in part,
including, but not limited to, those materials located
in any so-called "off-site" storage areas, electronic
or otherwise, or otherwise despoiling or causing the
despoliation, or alteration of any evidence, in whole
or in part, in any form, place or media relating to
defendant's conduct complained of in this action; and
5. causing or inducing any other person to engage in any
of the foregoing prohibited acts; and,
6. filing with the Court, except under seal, any documents
that contain any of the Advanced Technology.
The above Temporary Restraining Order is effective on
Plaintiff's filing an undertaking in the sum of $10,000. This
Order to Show Cause and supporting papers must be served on
Defendant no later than Friday, March 22, 1996, and proof of
service shall be filed no later than March 27, 1996. Any
response or opposition to this Order to Show Cause must be filed
and personally served on Plaintiff's counsel no later than March
27, 1996, and proof of service shall be filed no later than March
27, 1996.
DATED: 3/21/96 Ronald M. Whyte
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Issued on 3/21/96 at 5:12 p.m.
Ronald M. Whyte
EXHIBIT C
NOTs Series Registration Number
HCOB 15 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 1
HCOB 15 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 2
HCOB 15 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE III TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 3
HCOB 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 4
HCOB 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
ATTACHMENT #1
HCOB 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
ATTACHMENT #2
HCOB 22 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 5
HCOB 17 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE V TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 6
HCOB 17 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 7
HCOB 30 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 8
HCOB 15 SEPTEMBER 1978R ISSUE IV TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 9R REVISED
13 FEBRUARY 1981
HCOB 16 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE IV TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 10
HCOB 30 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 11
HCOB 16 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 12
HCOB 30 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE III TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 13
HCOB 17 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE III TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 14
HCOB 21 SEPTEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 15
HCOB 17 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 16
HCOB 28 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 17
HCOB 20 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE IV TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 18
HCOB 23 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 19
HCOB 28 SEPTEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 20
HCOB 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE III TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 21
HCOB 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE IV TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 22
HCOB 28 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 23
HCOB 28 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 24
HCOB 28 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 25
HCOB 28 SEPTEMBER 1978R ISSUE I TXu 257 326
REVISED 2 MARCH 1979
NED FOR OTS SERIES 26R
HCOB 1 NOVEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 27
HCOB 4 OCTOBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 28
HCOB 4 OCTOBER 1978 ATTACHMENT TXu 257 326
HCOB 5 OCTOBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 29
HCOB 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 30
HCOB 16 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE III TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 31
HCOB 29 OCTOBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 32
HCOB 11 NOVEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 33
HCOB 14 NOVEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 34
HCOB 29 OCTOBER 1978 ISSUE III TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 35
HCOB 22 SEPTEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 36
HCOB 27 OCTOBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 37
HCOB 7 NOVEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 38
HCOB 29 OCTOBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 39
HCOB 15 NOVEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 40
HCOB 11 DECEMBER 1978 ISSUE I TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 41
HCOB 11 DECEMBER 1978 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 42
HCOB 31 JANUARY 1979 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 43
HCOB 9 FEBRUARY 1979 ISSUE II TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 44
HCOB 10 FEBRUARY 1979 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 45
HCOB 22 FEBRUARY 1979 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 46
HCOB 27 OCTOBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 47
HCOB 20 DECEMBER 1978 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 48
HCOB 12 JANUARY 1979 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 49
HCOB 30 JANUARY 1979 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 50
HCOB 31 JANUARY 1980 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 51
HCOB 24 MAY 1980 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 52
HCOB 26 MAY 1980 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 53
HCOB 14 FEB 1981 TXu 257 326
NED FOR OTS SERIES 54
HCOB 22 DEC 1979 TXu 257 326
REISSUED 20 SEPT 1980
QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON
OTS SERIES 29
[end of court order]
On Friday, March 22 the court order was served. In a comedy of
errors, service was initially made on Grady Ward's wife. The service
was improper; evidently this was soon realized by the church, which
served Ward himself some four hours later. [Ward wondered whether
the church had to fly a second copy of the documents up from Los
Angeles for the purpose.]Shortly afterward, Ron Newman, Sheriff of ars, established a web page for Grady's court case. http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/grady/home.html
Ars posters and their service providers received a flurry of threatening email from attorney Kobrin. SCAMIZDAT reappeared on ars.
A firestorm of indignant letters from net citizens began to appear on ars. Operation Foot Bullet continues.
From: H Keith Henson <hkhenson@shell.portal.com>Comments:
March 26, 1996Ronald M. Whyte, Federal Judge
Northern District of California
San Jose, CAOpen Letter to Judge Whyte
Dear Judge Whyte:
In the company of perhaps 100,000 other people (the readers of the Usenet newsgroups alt.religion.scientology, alt.activism, alt.2600, comp.org.eff.talk, and misc.legal), I read the TRO against Mr. Grady Ward and "all persons in active concert." Was it your intent for this order to apply to random persons on the Internet such as myself? If so, I believe the TRO is a violation of my First Amendment rights to discuss the criminal activities of the cult of Scientology.
Upon reading the TRO you approved, I sorted the list of documents attached and ran a text search on the news spool on one of my accounts to see if any of these documents were there. Some were-- though it is impossible to tell if they are the real thing or not. I pulled out the first one which came up. I had not been inclined to look at this material before (it's *boring*), but your TRO inspired me. Assuming this is real, I can see why the "Church" of Scientology is trying to suppress this material. If carried out, the instructions in this particular bulletin amount to *criminal* acts, to wit, the practice of medicine without a license. I reproduce this widely available document in its entirety for your edification.
> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE > Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex > > HCO BULLETIN OF 14 NOVEMBER 1978 >[snip]> >Step Four -- Cures for Illness > > You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses of >the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing them off. >"Cures for Illness" will then cease to read. >[snip]Please note that point 4 states that this process of "blowing BTs" cures illness. The phrases "cease to read" and "no longer read" refer to "auditing" with an E-meter. The "Church" of Scientology is under Court orders stemming from FDA actions in the early 1970s against making such claims involving the use of E-meters. This bulletin (assuming it is real) is written evidence of the level of contempt the "Church" of Scientology has for the Courts. Scientology even has policies on using the court system to abuse critics and former members.
Forbidding discussion of this particular document, including quoting it entirely, is clearly against the public interest as well as a violation of my First Amendment rights. Unless, of course, copyright law can be used to prevent disclosure of instructions for criminal activity.
With respect to "all persons in active concert," I have certainly been sympathetic to the ideals Mr. Ward espouses, and felt much of the rage he must have felt when (as he puts it) the "criminal cult of Scientology" sent Gene Ingram, a wanted felon, to obtain pictures of Mr. Ward's children from his mother by deceit. For what reason did the "Church" of Scientology need pictures of Mr. Ward's children? Were they planning a kidnapping or was this just a tactic of intimidation? This would certainly be an interesting question for you to skillfully ask of the members of the law firm which paid Mr. Ingram for this particular service. They will be in your court Friday.
I know that taking a stand against Scientology is likely to subject me and my family to the same abuse Mr. Ward has experienced. But there comes a point where people of good will *must* stand up to criminals--even to those who are experts in using the courts to harass. If you think I am being too harsh in this matter, I can supply you with nearly unlimited affidavits and court findings which show a consistent pattern of criminal behavior for this cult over decades of time. Friday I will provide to you a letter from Mr. Arnie Lerma to Judge Brinkma about the stunts pulled on Mr. Lerma in a related case.
Many of those who read these news groups are outside of the US, and thus not subject to your authority. I, however, am local to San Jose and will be in your court Friday morning. It is my position that the public interest in this matter should override *all commercial* copyright concerns. The entire corpus of material the "Church" of Scientology is trying to keep from public view is so at odds with what cult victims are told when they are suckered into it as to constitute fraud--thinly disguised as "religion." On the other hand, if you feel the TRO *does* preclude quoting examples of the copyrighted, trade secret, criminal instruction manuals of the "Church" of Scientology, please let me know.
Sincerely,
H. Keith Henson
We again consulted the current SCAMIZDAT on ars. The HCO Bulletin Henson referenced is included.
We concluded that the text unequivocally supports Henson's view that scientology auditing is proposed as a medical treatment. Whether government has gone too far in regulating medical treatments is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, if vitamins and cancer cures are subject to regulation, it seems to follow that scientology should be as well. Should discussion of the topic be prohibited? Or encouraged in the public interest?
The court order left us feeling puzzled. Referring to the Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as quoted by Ms. Kobrin, the Restraining Order
...is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.
By posting the Temporary Restraining Order to ars, attorney Helena Kobrin was apparently attempting to serve the Order on the net. Since this posting numerous ars posters and their internet service providers have received legal threats in email from Kobrin. We infer that anyone who has asked to see a copy of NOTs is considered by the church to be subject to the TRO.
Could the judge have intended this interpretion? We doubt it.
Attorney Kobrin said (to the net): "...your attention is specifically called to the fact that the order specifically prohibits, among other things, the acquisition of the NOTs materials."
Actually, it looks to us like the Order prohibits the acquisition of NOTs by the parties to the action (etc.) and persons in active concert and participation with them (etc.) It is not clear whether the Order refers to Keith Henson, or to the numerous other net citizens and ISPs who have received the threatening mail.
The Order has an internal contradiction. As we read it, the parties are forbidden to acquire, possess, download, alter or destroy any documents mentioned in Exhibit C. On the other hand, the parties are required to _remove_ copies of these documents from all devices, networks, facilities, etc. It is hard to see how the parties subject to the Order can obey one part of it without violating another.
We were surprised that the Order connected Grady Ward with SCAMIZDAT. We know of no hard evidence for this link. Further, Kobrin's letter accuses Ward of soliciting NOTs so that the material can be published in SCAMIZDAT. Referring to the copy of SCAMIZDAT #11 which is currently on alt.religion.scientology, we noticed that NOTs have already been published by SCAMIZDAT. In fact, we believe that this has happened several times. If Ward were the author of SCAMIZDAT he would not have needed to request copies.
Comparing the two versions of the Order above, we noticed that the TRO explicitly provides for fair use; the proposed Restraining Order (the subject of tomorrow's hearing) lacks this provision. Instead a remark is made to the effect that a fair use defense is inapplicable to trade secrets.
This gave us pause. As far as we are aware, the trade secret status of the NOTs documents has not yet been established. Trade secrets normally cease to exist once they are no longer secret. NOTs have been available to the online public for some time. They continue to be available at this moment. For all practical purposes, NOTs have been disclosed.
Tomorrow Grady Ward will appear before Judge Whyte in San Jose to show cause why the TRO should not be made permanent. Keith Henson and other net citizens will be present. Biased Journalism will report the event.
Henson, a pragmatist, plans to bring his toothbrush to court in case he is found in violation of the TRO and sent to jail.
What's past is prologue...