§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §




Date: 21 Apr 2002 20:24:46 -0000
Message-ID: <HP8LK1P337368.2671990741@acapulco.dhs.org>
From: Cambridge <spam-trap@acapulco.dhs.org>
Subject: Re: ESSAY: Scientology and Copyright - APPENDIX II-E
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <M51DNF4A37367.1180671296@acapulco.dhs.org>, <7c54cu8vnl8d1tqsn0cpqsmnbn1i5r8q21@4ax.com>, <3LIKGNQT37367.7029513889@acapulco.dhs.org>, <o3e5cu43vvfli98p0rf0rp1oaudfr93ffh@4ax.com>
Comments: This message was automatically remailed by one or more
anonymous mail services. Please report abuse to:
Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
Organization: mail2news@dizum.com
Lines: 159

On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 in
message <o3e5cu43vvfli98p0rf0rp1oaudfr93ffh@4ax.com>
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:

>On 21 Apr 2002 06:52:15 -0000, Cambridge <spam-trap@acapulco.dhs.org>
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 in
>>message <7c54cu8vnl8d1tqsn0cpqsmnbn1i5r8q21@4ax.com>
>>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:

>>>On 20 Apr 2002 16:50:01 -0000, Cambridge <spam-trap@acapulco.dhs.org>

>>>>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:

>>>>>On 20 Apr 2002 02:09:30 -0000, Cambridge <spam-trap@acapulco.dhs.org

>>>>>If the From: line matches an email address that belongs to someone
>>>>>else, it is a forgery.

>>>>Your point is well taken, and would in other circumstances be a closer
>>>>in the debate, but I believe you are overlooking something germane to
>>>>the subject of parody/satire in this specific case:

>>>It *is* a closer. In any circumstances. It is simply not open to
>>>debate. If it results in you getting forgeries instead of the person's
>>>actual work when you pop "From: <theiremailaddress>" into a database, it
>>>is a forgery, it pollutes the database, and it can not fail to be

>>I find this a curious high moral ground for someone who has gone on
>>record as defending and posing justification for the theft of five
>>million dollars worth of intellectual property.
>I did nothing of the sort.

I believe the record tells a different story:

From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: LRH admissions, why I believe they are authentic
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:20:56
Message-ID: <lgcraucn3itjp0l4cb4gn2ve3ad1vieb0i@4ax.com>

>Yeah, Breckenridge ruled in a civil case that Armstrong's criminal
>grand theft was justified. And you agree?


>I pointed out, obviously, that Judge Breckenridge agreed that the action
>in question was not conversion.

That is not what you said, and if you had said it, you would have been
guilty yourself of polluting the record with falsehood. At no place in the
Breckenridge opinion, only one of many repugnant miscarriages of the legal
system and abuses of the bench, did even Breckenridge stoop so low as to
state that the conversion did not occur. He acknowledged that a prima facie
case had been made on two counts of conversion. Never once did he contest
the fact of the conversion, never once did he say that any evidence had
been presented to establish that such conversion had not, in fact, taken

Nor did he reveal, to his infinite infamy, that the documents he had
reviewed in camera were original manuscripts and literary properties that
only much later, under a different court, were assessed at five million
dollars. To have done so would have revealed his own calumny and would have
exposed his infamous bench issuance for the fraud that it was.

>The case was decided in Gerry Armstrong's favor based on the affirmative
>defense of justification, a principle recognized in conversion just as in
>any other tort.

The case was decided by one man who woke up one morning, and after clipping
his nose hairs and brushing his teeth and spitting in the sink, donned the
black robe of an office of trust, mounted the bench of that office of
trust, and used it to carefully conceal the most important fact of the
case upon which he was ruling: the value of the property at question. I
didn't address your own appeal to a tainted authority; I addressed your own
moral and ethical stance on the issue from your own current knowledge of
facts that were never revealed by your lionized authority, and in fact were
concealed by Breckenridge. Appeal to authority in response to a question of
one's own moral and ethical stance on any issue is always recognized as
weak, evasive, and non-responsive. In the instant case it appears to also
be an endorsement of a judicial atrocity.

When appeal to the despotic authority of an oligarchy of one supplants
integrity and values in the individual, all meaningful address to fact and
truth is nullified.

>As for "theft of five million dollars of intellectual property," that was
>never even alleged and certainly never proven in any court in the world.

No, it was not; Breckenridge ensured that the staggering value of the
property involved in the conversion was never timely revealed, and, for
reasons still unexplained, Hubbard never pressed criminal charges. But a
very convincing case for theft of five million dollars of intellectual
property has since been made, in my opinion, here in this very forum, and
the evidence stands now in the court of public opinion. If I were seeing
these facts as part of a grand jury, I would unquestionably vote for it to
go to criminal trial.

So what I was addressing was your own stated opinion, from your own moral
and ethical stance, about the facts as you now know them to be, not your
appeal to the "authority" of Breckenridge who concealed material and
important facts in his "opinion." I know what Breckenridge's "opinion" was.
We have all been subjected to it endlessly by the perpetrator of the
conversion and his supporters. What I was addressing is what you said when
a poster asked you specifically if you felt such a criminal grand theft
were justified, you said, "Entirely."

So I will ask you more specifically, Breckenridge entirely aside, and with
address to facts now known but concealed by Breckenridge:

1. From the knowledge and facts now available to you, is it your analysis
that Armstrong did or did not take originals (not copies, as Armstrong has
claimed) of another person's intellectual property?

2. From the knowledge and evidence now available to you, is it your
analysis that Armstrong did or did not have permission from the owner of
that property to take those originals?

3. From the knowledge and evidence now available to you, is it your
analysis that Armstrong did or did not deliver that property into the hands
of a third party without the owner's knowledge or permission?

4. From the knowledge and evidence now available to you, is it your
analysis that the property taken was or was not valued at five million
dollars? If not, what is your estimate, and what is your foundation?

5. If Armstrong did indeed take original intellectual works valued at five
million dollars, or four, or three, or two, or even one, without the
owner's permission, and did, indeed, deliver that property into the hands
of a third party, also without the owner's permission, do you or do you
not, in your own moral and ethical judgment, consider that grand theft?

>Your fallacious tu quoque evasion aside, my statement that using an
>identical From: line constitutes forgery stands and is incontestable. It
>is, in fact, the commonly accepted definition of Usenet forgery.

Quite the contrary to your unfounded accusation of evasion on my part, in
concession to your monotonous point I, not you, supplied a plenary remedy
for all aspects of your plaint in the issuance of legal cancels by the
offended party. You have adroitly sidestepped that remedy, preferring
instead, apparently, to continue to grandstand on the tiny patch of high
moral ground you have staked out for yourself.

You, on the other hand, have uniformly evaded every issue raised by me,
including the material lies and egregious omissions of Owen, and if history
is any predictor of performance, I fully expect you to continue to evade
them, as well as the valid questions of morality and ethics I have raised





§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §