Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:58:29 -0400 From: elrond@cgo.wave.ca (Gregg Hagglund) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: RTC/CO$ PRESSURES My ISP was RE: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials Message-ID: Organization: ESI Council NNTP-Posting-Host: cgowave-7-50.cgocable.net Lines: 636 Well the usual unlegal attempt has been made by Ms. Kobrin, or an agent of the Co$ utilizing her account to test the mettle of my ISP: COGECO. I have been asked to cancel my post, which I have agreed to do *provided* proper legal and applicable notice is given. And a non PGP e-mail is not proper legal notice. My reply to the request of Mr. J Robertson of COGECO to cancel my posting as relayed to me by Mr. D Johnson is appended below. Sorry it is so long. Please feel free to snip all unnecessary parts of this epic if you chose to comment. Anyone who has had an ISP or *is* an ISP who has demanded more from Ms. Kobrin et al than an unauthenticated email rant before canceling posts or a website might give me a hand. Gregg >X-Sender: techno@mail.cgo.wave.ca >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:39:18 -0400 >To: elrond@cgocable.net >From: Dan Johnson - Cablenet Wave Support >Subject: FW: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials -Forwarded > > Gregg, > >It looks as though Scientology is starting on you :) Can you please cancel >the post and perhaps e-mail Jeff Robertson at >jrobertson@internet.cgocable.net as he has requested you remove the posting. >Maybe a good idea to let him know your situation in regards to this. > >-Dan >-----Original Message----- >From: Helena Kobrin [SMTP:hkk@netcom.com] >Sent: June 10, 1997 6:49 PM >To: admin@CGOCABLE.net >Cc: pcole@CGOCABLE.net >Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials > > > >Dear Messrs. Fox and Cole: > > I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the confidential >Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the >copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology >materials are confidential, unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others, >the individual works comprising a level known as "NOTs." > > A posting to alt.religion.scientology, and nl.scientology was made through Cablenet by >Gregg Hagglund containing my client, Religious Technology Center's copyrighted materials, >known as "NOTs Series No. 7". He has posted this work with the following message ID: > > elrond-0906971705360001@cgowave-7-50.cgocable.net > > These works have been posted to these newsgroups without the authorization of my >client. The works are registered with the US Copyright Office under registration numbers TXu >257326 and 257527. > > These postings violate United States and Canadian copyright law. Because this document >is on your site or has been made through your site, it is copyright infringement for which you >can be held liable. We therefore request that it be removed immediately. > > We are currently involved in litigation over the same and similar materials in several >lawsuits. Preliminary injunctions based on copyright infringement and trade secret >misappropriation are in place in three of those suits in the United States District Court in San >Jose, California. And a United States District Court in the state of Virginia has granted >judgment in favor of my client, related to copyright infringement of some of these works. > > In one of the San Jose cases, in which Netcom was a defendant, the court ruled that an >access provider which is informed that infringement is occurring through its system and does >nothing to stop it can be liable for contributory infringement. > > We are not seeking to become involved in litigation, but we will take all necessary >measures to protect my client's intellectual property rights. We presume that you would agree >that we can resolve this amicably. > > Please confirm that this posting has been removed. I wanted to e-mail you directly >because of the urgency of canceling this posting through your system so that it is removed both >from your system and other computers to which it has been sent. > > > Sincerely, > > Helena K. Kobrin > Dear Mr.Robertson, Let me assure you as I posted to Phil Cole: "You will be pleased to know that I have not, nor ever shall, originate a quote of something , in its entirety, which is copyright to another that I know of. Unless it is in the fair use context, or I have permission or made the requiste legal attempts to gain permission. In this instance, I was responding to someone else's post which I did not alter, but simply added my comment to his/hers. " [ Below please find a copy of a posting I made to Phil Cole yesterday.] I would like to add a few additional comments. This will take a few moments of your time, but the issues at hand as you will soon come to realize are not trivial in the least. And ultimately have little to do with the purported unproven and unsubstantiated claim of 'Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials'. Ms. Kobrin, *if* indeed this is Ms. Kobrin has included in her communique misleading information in an effort to sound impressive and to intimidate. This is the standard operating practice of her client the Church of Scientology. One glaring error is the claim that RTC has an injunction on anyone involving trade secret violations, these have been withdrawn by the RTC. [Contact: Attorney Graham E. Berry ] There do exist injunctions upon specific individuals in specific jurisdictions for specific copyright claims made by RTC, however none of these injunctions relates to me or you or any other Canadian citizen or ISP. Second is the claim of valid copyright. This was apparently overturned by a decision of a US Court, by virtue of a ruling called the KOLT ruling, which deemed these materials to still remain the property of an organisation called the CSC. This has become the central issue of the several litigations the RTC frivolously and foolishly initiated in the United States despite having lost the same court battles and claims in Europe. [Check with ISP xs4all.] I would point out, additionally, that this email is *not* proper and legal notice of any kind, nor legal in any manner or recognised by *any* court anywhere as applicable proper legal notification under any circumstances, urgent or not. If you would check with your own legal advisors you will find that COGECO can not be held liable, should there even be any liability for my posting, until such time as proper legal notice is given in accordance with the laws of Ontario and Canada to me or COGECO and I, or COGECO, should then fail to cancel the post in question. Additionally, any request to myself to remove such a posting, by anyone, in absence of any proof that such a posting contains any material copyright to anyone, is an infringement of my Freedom of Speech as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I, and numerous others before me all over the world, have received many such improper and unlegal communiques from 'Ms. Kobrin' in the past. So have other ISPs. Many of these notices have been deliberate forgeries. Check around. Ms. Kobrin does not seem to respond to requests for proper Certified Applicable Legal Notification. However she does indulge in questionable actions such as previously sending an illegal RMGROUP command for alt.religion.scientology in an attempt to stifle Free Speech all over the Globe. See http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/usenet/rmgroup.html Should she provide me or COGECO with the Documentation I have requested through proper and legal means I would be willing to cancel, at your request, any post that I originated which violated 'Fair Use'. However, that is not the case here. There is no valid reason under law for me or COGECO to withdraw any posting or honor any request to cancel any posting until such time as proper legal notice, in a legal manner, containing sufficient proof of an authentic claim of copyright, is given. Nor, I might add, is there any legal reason for COGECO to request the same of me until such time as the above conditions are satsified. This notice IMHEO is either a hoax, or certainly unlegal and flawed. Check with your legal advisors. I would suggest you contact Netcom. And contact the owners of the ISP xs4all. You will find at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta -an internationally known and publicly accessible repository of all the materials Ms. Kobrin claims as being copyright to RTC whom she claims in her unlegal notice to represent. Specifically at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/SCN/ss51_not.html#7 You will see there a copyright notice appended to the bottom of the particular document: Snr C/S Int Assistant Accepted by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA LRH:dm:kjm Copyright (c) 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED You will notice that the organisation known as RTC does not appear anywhere on this document. CSC does. You may also note that RTC tried *unsuccessfully* in court to have this and similar sites at xs4all remove these documents. You will also notice that this document appears to be the source of the document contained in the posting to which I *merely responded*. You will also notice that this document, of which I originated nothing from, comprises a tiny segment of those documents upon this site. Sir, IMHEO you are being defrauded, mislead and manipulated into being the instrument of illegally abridging my Freedom of Speech through censorship by the representative of an organisation whose operating doctrine includes the precept that "you can control people by lying to them," and " tell an acceptable truth". I will, of course cancel my posting, should it still be upon your server, *the moment I receive an applicable true legal notice*. Or should you show me, physically, an applicable true legal notice served upon you. I would further point out that as you are well aware, the Church of Scientology acting here as the RTC, has at their disposal the technical ability to issue a cancel of their own of my posting. This would not be an illegal act in the United States, provided that they did infact hold a legal copyright to this or similar articles posted by others. That they have not done so should clearly indicate to you that they themselves do not wish to be held accountable for an indefensible criminal act of third party cancelling of the posts of Usenet users on the pretext of copyright ownership which may *not* be valid. [See Cancel Faq-in part- "3. g. Unauthorized copyrighted material Related to the forgery issue (above), there are many cases on Usenet where the copyrighted material of one person is posted by another. There is a consensus emerging that such posts are cancellable by the holder of the copyright, though many other legal issues may be involved in the future. As with many other topics, this issue is still being discussed; for more information, see news.admin.net-abuse.policy."] I will also point out that you yourself have the ability to cancel my post, [See Cancel faq -in part- "2. Second person cancels are performed by those people officially in charge of a user, ie the person's news administrator. These, too, are officially authorized in all circumstances, as are cancellations by a third-party explicitly authorized by the poster's news admin."] and to terminate my service if you should so desire, in violation of the Free Speech provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for what legally recognised cause or necessity? It may be enlightening to you to visit my Website at http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond There you will gain an insight into why Ms. Kobrin or an agent of the Church of Scientology using her account at netcom, feels compelled to attack me through attempting to bully and manipulate you into doing what they cannot and darenot: infringe my rights guaranteed by the Charter. You will see at http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond/1GlbM.html why they darenot try such infringement themselves. The Ontario Court of Appeals when it upheld the criminal conviction of the Church of Scientology, deemed that any criminal act commited *by* an agent of the Church of Scientology, *for* the benefit of the Church of Scientology, is considered a criminal act *of* the entire Church of Scientology. This 'message' is simply another act of intimidation in a world wide series of such unsubstantiated claims, until such time as Ms. Kobrin is able to supply proper applicable legal notice of any nature. Andreas Heldal-Lund of Operation Clambake: http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/ - and his ISP have been *requesting* proper legal notice, rather than repeated similar unlegal notices, from a 'Ms. Kobrin' for over six months and have not received same. Check with his ISP. Until such time, I would expect that COGECO will conduct itself in a professional manner and demand, as I have, of Ms. Kobrin et al, more than the specious claims she has made to you and myself, delivered in an unlegal manner, before you take any action whatsoever in this matter. I would respectfully request that you consult with your legal advisors, as I have mine, and then consult with myself, directly, before succumbing to and acting upon, these unlegal and unprofessional intimidation tactics, committed I believe, as an attempt at extralegal censorship, which may quite possibly be a hoax or even a fraud. This may seem like a tremendous headache over a simple post, which I or your staff or the Church of Scientology and RTC could cancel in a heartbeat. This is just a probe of you and COGECO. What moral fibre COGECO is made of will become an issue as well. They will next attack my website on your server which contains nothing legally or morally challengable. It is my WWW voice and is the true object of this harrassment. But that is not the point. Determining how easily you and COGECO can be intimidated into imposing upon my or any other subscribers Freedom of Speech, at the behest of the Church of Scientology, is the entire object of this exercise. Sincerely, William G. Hagglund See attached below: > As I predicted Phil, the CoS has begun its intimidation act. > Now they may have sent this to you or something similar, .I don't know, but I feel obligated to keep my ISP informed. > I expect you will pay me the same courtesy. > The post Ms. Kobrin is referring to below contained less that 5% .of the known total Nots series, which may, may, be held copyright by the RTC. > A Judge named Kolt ruled some time ago that a company called the CSC held all the copyrights that now RTC claims. CSC transfer of these to the RTC is being challenged because it was done after the CSC was found liable in a lawsuit. The CoS gutted CSC to avoid payment, including transferring certain copyrights to RTC. And what a circus that has become! > Anyway, I doubt this "Nots 7" stuff is really theirs as I have seen it or something similar on an internationally famous Website for months and the RTC haven't >even sent that Webpage Author one true legal notice, despite him asking and pleading for one, so he can be clear on what is and isn't what. > However, RTC is in court right now being unexpectedly required to prove that they *do* hold legal copyrights on a number of documents of which the one referred to below *might* be part of. > I am assuming that RTC does claim the copyright to *some* document titled Nots 7, however since said document is a supposed secret and RTC has never acknowledged publicly its contents how the heck is anyone to know what is or isn't owned by anyone? > You will be pleased to know that I have not, nor ever shall, originate a quote of something , in its entirety, which is copyright to another that I know of. Unless it is in the fair use context, or I have permission or made the requiste legal attempts to gain permission. In this instance, I was responding to someone else's post which I did not alter, but simply added my comment to his/hers. > >I find it hard to believe any real Lawyer would possibly think that anyone with half a brain would accept as valid any purported legal document or claim sent via the common and easily manipulated medium of e-mail. > >However, being a practicing Scientologist, the infamous Ms. Kobrin has been known to audit tomatoes and command ashtrays to fly, it is not an impossibility that this is a real posting. > >>Received: from netcom6.netcom.com (hkk@netcom6.netcom.com [192.100.81.114]) >> by mail.cgocable.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29637 >> for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:51:39 -0400 (EDT) >>Received: (from hkk@localhost) by netcom6.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) >> id PAA07931; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:51:15 -0700 >>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT) >>From: Helena Kobrin >>Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials >>To: elrond@cgo.wave.ca >>Message-ID: >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >>X-UIDL: d1e570ce526a71ae8c2e09d53d05b961 >> >> >> >> >>Dear Mr. Hagglund: >> >> I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the confidential >>Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the >>copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology >>materials are confidential, unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others, >>the individual works comprising a level known as "NOTs." >> >> You posted to alt.religion.scientology, and nl.scientology RTC's copyrighted materials, >>known as "NOTs Series No. 7" using the following message ID: >> >> elrond-0906971705360001@cgowave-7-50.cgocable.net >> >> These works have been posted to these newsgroups without the authorization of my >>client. The works are registered with the US Copyright Office under registration numbers TXu >>257326 and 257527. >> >> These postings violate United States and Canadian copyright law. We therefore request that it be removed immediately. >> >> We are currently involved in litigation over the same and similar materials in several >>lawsuits. Preliminary injunctions based on copyright infringement and trade secret >>misappropriation are in place in three of those suits in the United States District Court in San >>Jose, California. And a United States District Court in the state of Virginia has granted >>judgment in favor of my client, related to copyright infringement of some of these works. >> >> We are not seeking to become involved in litigation, but we will take all necessary >>measures to protect my client's intellectual property rights. We presume that you would agree >>that we can resolve this amicably. >> >> Please confirm that this posting has been removed. >> >> Sincerely, >> Helena Kobrin >> > > > Dear Ms. Kobrin, > > As I believe you are known to be one of the 'lawyers' of the RTC >I will have to express my extreme disappointment in receiving your communique. > > It is a common legal concession in both Canada and the U.S.A. that >electronic communications of this sort are not legal notification of any kind and >are simply done for the sake of harassment. > >According to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, the purpose of >litigation "is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can >be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on somebody >who is simply on the the edge anyway, well knowing that his is not >authorised, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. >If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." > > Should you wish to contact me again please do so by regular post >as I shall be configuring my E-Mail software to filter anything further > from you or any other of the list of known RTC legal representatives. > > As to the content of your communique, I am equally disappointed > to receive such misinformation from a purported legal representative >of the RTC. > > I am not foolish enough to accept any claim of legal copyright >from anyone on any material which I can buy for 60 Kroner, by mail, >from the Swedish Parliament. Material which has been available for >over half a year on the Internet! > > First I would like to point out, since I have no resource guide to >consult as to what is actually a true document originating from those >documents which RTC claims copyright from, I must point out to you >that any claim made by you of copyright will have to be accompanied >by a Canadian Court certified original of same before I may be compelled >to withdraw anything from the Internet. > > Second, I would add as well, that it is hardly possible for I or >anyone else to constantly check for possible copyrights on any Usenet >posting if such documents are not readily available in the public library >or a book store. It is also impractical and ludicrous to suggest, or imply, >that I, or anyone else, must needs spend considerable time and effort >checking the authenticity of and authority of the content of any Usenet >posting which I do not originate. > > Third, I would point out since many Usenet providers do not accept >or recognize cancels, then any effort I would make to cancel any message >I have originated would be less than perfect and therefore pointless in a medium >whereby such a message may be disseminated repeatedly in quotations >until the end of time. [ADDENDUM: Cancel faq - in part- II part D. Do all news sites accept cancels? No. Many news sites have decided that, for whatever reason, they do not want cancels; others merely do not want certain types of cancels. Dave Hayes, for example, runs a "Site of Virtue", which not only ignores cancels but drops them without distributing them; patches for INN to do this are available from his Freedom Knights Homepage, at http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet.] > > Fourth, I am not bound by any court injunction made in any case >which RTC is a part of in any jurisdiction outside of the one >I reside: Ontario Canada. [ADDENDUM: The RTC has sought to drop all Trade Secret claims in its US litigations. contact: Attorney Graham E. Berry ] > > Fifth, as you are well aware RTC has conceded in the current >litigations that it has no answer to the KOLT RULING that recognises >the NOTS series as a work for hire owned by CSC, which, despite being >a bankrupt corporation and in debt to one L. Wollersheim for a sum >exceeding 5 million US dollars, was able to loan the CoS Toronto Org >several millions to pay its fines for Criminal acts and Libel Awards against it. > Therefore I would expect to receive a communique from you, >via the regular posts which accomplishes the following: > > 1. A Canadian Court Certified copy of the court ruling in the >United States that overturns the KOLT RULING or recognises that >CSC transferred such rights to the RTC and the date of that transfer >and the *clear acceptance* by a U.S. Court that such transfer was legal. > > Subsequently: > > 2. A Canadian Court certified copy of "NOTs Series No. 7" which >clearly establishes the RTC copyright as valid pursuant to 1., above. > > Further, if we do not wish to go through this dance eternally, >then I suggest you either provide to me Canadian Court certified >copies of all copyrighted materials held by the RTC which are not >affected by the KOLT RULING or, should you be able to >fulfil 1. above, then provide me with all RTC copyrighted material. > This material should be on CD ROM in Power Mac Native Code. >I will then be able to effectively screen any Usenet posting for its >copyright content as an automatic process via filtering program. >The costs of same I would expect you to bear as it is your obligation >to show bonafide and legal claim to copyright of any document which > is not readily available to the public in a recognisable and open manner. >Otherwise one might as well expect individuals to be able to read the > minds of RTC lawyers to ascertain the validity of and copyright of >unavailable material. > > In the alternative, RTC might chose to communicate to me the >authenticity of those documents available on the Internet and through >the Swedish Parliament as true accurate copies of documents RTC >claims legitimate copyrights upon, provided of course you first > satisfy 1. above. > > It will, of course be interesting to read any explanation that RTC >may have for requesting anyone, including myself, to refrain from >publicly examining or commenting on in the Usenet Medium any such >documents which have been and continue to be disseminated unobstructed >by the RTC in the public domain of the the Internet and the >State of Sweden by its Parliament. > > I, too, do not wish to become involved in time wasting litigation, >however, since it is your position that I should comply with what >you claim to be a simple request to accomplish two impossibilities, >that is 'unring a bell' and discern the hidden ownership of the content >of every quoted Usenet post I encounter, then it becomes >your obligation to make these impossibilities either worth >attempting or possible at all. > > Lastly, I would like to caution you and your clients to become >more familiar with Canadian Law as it has currently evolved in our >courts in particular to the Church of Scientology and its associated >business ventures. > One should note that the largest libel settlement in Canadian History >was wrung from the CoS Toronto by a Crown Counsel; and the Ontario >Court of Appeal has ruled in effect that criminal acts performed *by* >members or employees of the Church of Scientology *for* the benefit >of the Church of Scientology are to be considered as criminal acts *of* >the Church of Scientology. > > Some of these criminal acts for which the Church of Scientology was >found responsible for and paid fines for, involved the infiltration of and >espionage upon leading Law Firms here in Toronto. And they will accept >Legal Aid for which I am qualified as my only assets are my tools of trade >which by Canadian law may not be lost by me as a result of the necessity >of financing a Defence or launching an Action or to satisfy any Judgment. >This includes my computer as, amongst many things I am a contract >computer artist. > > So now that you have threatened me and tried to 'shudder me' >me into silence and I have indicated to you that it is neither likely or >possible that you will be able to do so without incredible cost, >no possible recompense and every likelihood of your clients losing >any countersuit for frivolous and malicious prosecution, then there >is only one >simple recourse for you to take. > > Just order the OSA to provide you with a copy of the cancel my >post which they have done themselves. > That should satisfy the needs and claims of your client RTC. > > The rest has been all an automatic act of intimidation. > > >Sincerely yours, > >William G Hagglund Gregg SP4 http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond -- " I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate." - -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS $cientology Lawyer Bait: Co$ cures Cancer?: "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." --- ררר L.R.Hubbard (c) ??? ---