Gerry Armstrong--The Goon Squad

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BNFG6Z9Y37147.7768055556%40acapulco&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Date: 13 Sep 2001 08:38:36 -0000
Message-ID: <BNFG6Z9Y37147.7768055556@acapulco>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (The Librarian)
Subject: YOO-HOO! PTSC! About Those Copyrights PART 4
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Comments: This message came via at least one anonymous remailer.
ABUSE CONTACT : freaky-abuse@freaky.acapulco.shacknet.nu
And/Or See: http://freaky.webhop.org
X-Remailer-Contact: freaky-admin@freaky.acapulco.shacknet.nu
Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
Organization: mail2news@dizum.com
Lines: 1063

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Oh, Robbie, I am sooooo sorry I was gone so long? Did you miss me? Well,
I got cream cheese just, like, all *over* me when I was taking off my
bra. Sheeeeesh, what a *mess*! I practically had to *bathe* myself in
that little Cloak Room Kitchenette with nothing but paper towels.

But it looks like I made it back *just* in time for the final act! I can
hardly *wait* to see what happens next!

3 December 1996
"F.A.C.T.Net's counsel"--Graham Berry--has retained Robert Vaughn Young
as an expert consultant in RTC/BPI v. F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., et al.
SOURCE: Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed c. 15 August 1997 in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action
No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net,
INC., et al., Defendants.

Now, Robbie, my sweet little smart little angel: *tell* me you predicted
the arrival of Robert Vaughn Young on the stage in the opening of the
final act! Please please please, and I will lllllllllick *10* gold stars
and paste them, just, like, all *over* you in *all* the best places!

15 c. February 1997
In a Declaration filed in RTC/BPI v. FACTNet, et al., Larry Wollersheim
states, regarding the copyrighted works at issue: "Many of the documents
which are at issue here were originally owned by the Church of
Scientology of California and therefore constitute assets which should
have been transferred to me, in satisfaction of my judgment, instead of
to Bridge Publications." [EDITOR'S NOTE: There are a host of legal
issues very subtly alluded to in Wollersheim's statement that are only
fully understood by address to the corporate relationships established
in the 1960's between the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc.
(H.A.S.I.) and CSC--covered rather exhaustively in the 1960's section of
the Timeline [see]. But Wollersheim's statement bespeaks a knowledge of
the underlying implications, and an intention to come into ownership and
possession of the intellectual property, a theme that Wollersheim will
revisit. Given all available data, it seems to be a very likely reason
for the very existence of his 501(c)(3) corporation, F.A.C.T.Net. --Ed.]
SOURCE: February 1997 Declaration of Lawrence D. Wollersheim

15 c. February 1997
Robert Vaughn Young writes a Declaration in RTC/BPI v. FACTNet, et al.
claiming the following:
"I was at ASI in 1983 when it was discovered that many
of Hubbard's works had 'gone public domain.' We were
told this was due to improper copyright registration
and/or renewal. ...[A] massive push was undertaken to
get the works registered. I remember...Pat Brice
remarking that registration notices could not be filed
on vast number [sic] because they were past the five
year time limit when a registration certificate can be
filed. At that time, ASI was being run by David
Miscavige who, although he held a position of Chairman
of the Board of ASI, was the person in actual command.
Miscavige said that it did not matter if the
certificates were late or not but that Ms. Brice was to
file them anyway. I remember Pat Brice trying to
politely explain that it was of no use, but Miscavige
would have nothing of it. He said to copyright
everything, regardless. There subsequently followed a
flurry of copyright filings. As the material was found,
registrations were checked, documents were filed either
as an original registration or as renewals. This is why
there is a sudden surge in 1983."
ROBERT VAUGHN YOUNG
SOURCE: Copy of the February 1997 Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young

My *goodness*! Well here we've come *almost* full circle. That suave and
erudite Robert Vaughn Young! And it is *so wonderful* that here in
1997--only 14 years after the fact--he *FINALLY* begins to remember the
"DavidMiscavigeMassiveCopyrightFraud"[TM] that he says he was an
eyewitness to back around the time when he was having meetings with
Sherman Lenske, in 1983. Is this, like, Alzheimers reversing itself or
something? It's a psychological *miracle*! Wonder if he got himself some
"ARC Straightwire"? Maybe at Wellspring? Do they *do* that there?

3 March 1997
In a radio interview, decorated military remote-viewer Joseph McMoneagle
says that remote viewing protocol "has essentially been the same and has
been unchanged since the original research into remote viewing in 1972
at SRI." [NOTE: The 1972 protocols at SRI are those developed,
conducted, and taught by Scientology OTs Ingo Swann and Pat Price, under
the directorship of Scientology OT Hal Puthoff.]
SOURCE: Transcript of portions of the Art Bell radio interview, on file

12 March 1997
In a Denver Westword article called "Nightmare on the net," Larry
Wollersheim claims to have evidence that "some of Hubbard's religious
writings were registered improperly, were allowed to lapse into the
public domain, or were actually written by others." Wollersheim is
quoted as saying: "They don't own many of the copyrights that they claim
we are infringing. They didn't think we would dig far enough to find out
what was going on. What they didn't realize is that one of their
intelligence people has left the organization and has assisted us."
Wollersheim declines to identify his secret source [EDITOR'S NOTE: Yawn.
Let me try to guess. --Ed.], but the article notes that FACTNet recently
filed a declaration in the case from Robert Vaughn [Yawn. --Ed.] Young,
and goes on to say that "Young claims there are numerous irregularities
in the copyright registrations of Hubbard's work and says he was
involved in an effort in the early 1980s to register works that had
supposedly lapsed into the public domain years before... ." Wollersheim
is also quoted as saying: "I can tell you, there are countersuits
coming. We're going to sue the living shit out of everyone involved in
this. It's going to be one lawsuit after another and another. They're
going to be burned in public relations and financially. ...There's so
much wrong with the copyrights of Scientology that we suspect they're
going to try to back-door out of the case very fast. But they're not
going to be able to, because of our counterclaims. They're going to be
paying for this a long time. They're going to lose much of the con--the
copyright and trade-secret con they've been playing on people. "
SOURCE: Denver Westworld article for week of 6-12 March 1997

Hmmmm. You know, I was just wondering if Larry Wollersheim ever thought
that anyone else would "dig far enough to find out what's going
on"--like we're doing here now, my sweet little scholar, Rrrrrrrrrobbie.
Well, after *all* this digging, here we are, my dear, at paydirt: here
we approach the Mother of All "Public Domain" Allegations. And it looks
like a very, very big payoff for *somebody* is all set up. (Come'ere and
let me whisper this part in your ear: Unfortunately, I'm afraid some
little ssssurprises are in store for *sssssomebody,* not *too* much
further up the mine shhhhaft. Shhhhhh.) But for now, let's be *very
attentive,* because the august Robert Vaughn Young is about to present
himself to the *whole wide world* in his *very firt post* to a.r.s.,
with hints and allegations of his newfound recollections about the, er,
copyright problems. It's a musical, now. He's going to sing it. Let's
hang on to every note...

4 April 1997
>From: writer@eskimo.com (Robert Young)
>Subject: Seeking LRH (C) Information
>Date: 1997/04/22
>Message-ID: <E91p6o.2BD@eskimo.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing
>
>My name is Robert Vaughn Young. I have been retained by as an expert
>consultant by defense counsel in RTC et al v. FACTNet et al (US
>District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No.
>95-K-2143).
>
>Plaintiff has claimed it validly owns the copyrights to the material at

>issue in this case. This material consists of HCOBs, HCOPLs and other
>Scientology directives, most of which carries [sic] the signature of L.

>Ron Hubbard. In preparing to take this matter to trial and to refute
>Plaintiff's claim, I am seeking copies of original directives -
>especially from the 1950s, 60s and 70s to deal with two issues:
>copyright notice and authorship.
SOURCE: First post of Robert Vaughn Young to a.r.s.

On second thought, let's *don't* hang on every note. I mean, he only
spends, like, 15 *pages* reprising those two off-key refrains for pity's
sake! But we knew where this was going anyway, didn't we throbbie
Rrrrrobbie, my little soft-cheeked peaches? Heck, even *I* did!

18 April 1997
In a letter regarding RTC v. F.A.C.T.Net et al., attorney Graham Berry
writes to "RTC" counsel Samuel D. Rosen: "[O]ur analysis indicates that
plaintiffs may have perpetrated a massive fraud upon the heirs of L. Ron
Hubbard, the L. Ron Hubbard probate court, the federal and California
State governments, the U.S. Copyright Office and the courts in this and
many other cases over the past twelve years. Our analysis indicates that
a large number of the published works are, among other things...SUBJECT
TO LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM'S ATTACHMENT RIGHTS ARISING FROM HIS UNSATISFIED
JUDGMENT IN WOLLERSHEIM I [emphasis added]."
SOURCE: 18 April 1997 letter from Graham Berry to Samuel Rosen, posted
to a.r.s.

7 May 1997
In the Probate Division, San Luis Obispo Superior Court, California,
F.A.C.T.Net and Lawrence Wollersheim, through attorney Graham Berry,
file an Ex Parte Petition for a stay in the "L. Ron Hubbard estate
proceedings," and a suspension of the "powers of executor Norman F.
Starkey." The petition is rejected by the court. [EDITOR'S NOTE: LOL! In
fact, though, this isn't really funny, because this astounding red
herring was the vehicle for Wollersheim and Graham Berry to unleash a
tornado of false and misleading allegations and assertions concerning
the Will, the Estate, and the Trusts, as well as the relationship of
Norman Starkey--as Executor and Trustee--to Sherman Lenske, CST and the
intellectual property. While addressing some of the actual and very
serious anomolies surrounding those, Berry and Wollersheim yet made
certain to mix in many confusions and falsehoods, thereby obfuscating
the simple fact that CST was now the owner of all the intellectual
property--as they had been since 29 November 1993 by order and agreement
of Commissioner of IRS. As only one obscene example, Berry filed in the
public record of the Colorado court--as part of a filed "Points and
Authorities" referenced below--this blatant lie: "CST confirmed the
assignment of all the assets of the Estate to RTC." It is an utterly
ludicrous whole-cloth fiction, and both Wollersheim and Berry are known
to have been in possession of numerous legal documents proving
otherwise. Yet in all their filings, Berry and Wollersheim kept the
legal spotlight on RTC Chairman David Miscavige, loudly and publically
insisting on and pursuing Miscavige's deposition. What could have been a
prime opportunity to expose and clarify the funneling of the
intellectual properties through Starkey to CST became, instead, a
near-hysterical slinging of bits of truth mixed with wild falsehoods and
assertions, resulting ultimately in a summary slamming of the door by
the probate court on the Ex Parte Petition, thereby effectively
sheilding the highly questionable involvement of Sherman Lenske, Meade
Emory, and others, and camouflaging the actual role of CST. In light of
all the preceeding and subsequent events, it could be concluded that
Berry and Wollersheim willfully and knowingly created the misdirection,
and that protection of CST, Lenske, and others was part of their knowing
and willful intention in filing the rejected probate action, partly as a
deterrent to any future similar actions. This evidences possible
collusion between Berry/Wollersheim and a party or parties unknown with
interest in CST and the intellectual properties, and proves to be only
one of several incidents evidencing such a possible collusion. --Ed.]
SOURCE: 7 May 1997 Ex Parte Petition filed by Graham Berry for
F.A.C.T.Net and Larry Wollersheim in Probate Division, San Luis Obispo
Superior Court, California; ALSO, Memorandum of Points and Authorities
filed c. 15 August 1997 in United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net, INC., et al., Defendants; ALSO, 7 May 1993
Press Release on the hearing issued by Karin Pouw, Church of Scientology
International, posted to a.r.s.

7 May 1997
A letter from attorney Thomas Small is entered by Monique Yingling as an
exhibit into the probate hearing before Judge Barry Hammer, Presiding
Judge Probate Division, San Luis Obispo Superior Court, California [see
other entry this date]. The letter says: "As I am confident you will
show at the hearing, Mr. Hubbard's statutory successors (widow,
children) have assigned their renewal rights to Mr. Starkey and his
successors [CST], and these renewal rights have been exercised by Mr.
Starkey pursuant to the assignments, so that the renewed copyrights are
owned by CST as successor to Mr. Starkey. I understand that Mr. Starkey
purchased these rights for valuable consideration paid to the statutory
successors [Mary Sue and the children], and further, to the best of my
knowledge, that none of them has questioned the assignments in any way.
In my opinion, the purchase of these rights by Mr. Starkey was in
accordance with standard practice in this field and was completely
proper and effective to secure both the contingent renewal rights and
the renewed copyrights for Mr. Starkey's successors [CST]." [EDITOR'S
NOTE: This letter is a smoking gun that proves conclusively Thomas
Small's full cognizance and comprehension, at all relevant times, of
CST's ownership of all the copyrights and all attached renewal rights,
and his unique percipient knowledge of the details of transactions
leading to and resulting in CST's full ownership. Furthermore, Yingling,
who flies out from Washington, D.C. to appear at the probate hearing,
and who presents Small's letter to the court, is the attorney who signed
the secret IRS Closing Agreement with Power of Attorney for CST on 1
October 1993, although that is NOT KNOWN at the time of the hearing, as
the Closing Agreement is still secret. --Ed.]
SOURCE: 8 May 1997 letter from F.A.C.T.Net attorney Graham Berry to
attorney Monique Yingling and Charles Ogle

15 c. May 1997
Plaintiffs RTC and BPI (the attorneys for both corporations acting as
silent agents for CST) engage F.A.C.T.Net and Larry Wollersheim in
"settlement negotiations."
SOURCE: Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed c. 15 August 1997 in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action
No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net,
INC., et al., Defendants; ALSO, several key posts to a.r.s. by
Wollersheim, on file.

6 June 1997
DURING the purported "settlement negotiations" between RTC/BPI and
F.A.C.T.Net, an Amendment is filed to the Articles of Incorporation for
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. The Amendment changes Article Four as follows:
"Provisions regarding the distribution of assets on dissolution. Upon
dissolution of the corporation, assets shall be distributed equally to
American Family Foundation [AFF] (PO Box 336, Weston, MA 02193) and
Dialog Centre International (Katrinebjergvej 46, 8200 Arhus N,
Denmark)." A Biennial Report filed on the same day names the officers as
Lawrence D. Wollersheim and Arnaldo Lerma, and the sole Director as
Lawrence D. Wollersheim.
SOURCE: 6 June 1997 Amendment and Bienneal Report as filed with Colorado
Secretary of State Corporations Office.

15 c. July 1997
Settlement negotiations between RTC/BPI (both corporations and their
attorneys acting as agents for CST) and F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. come to a
fruitless end. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Sniff. --Ed.]
SOURCE: Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed c. 15 August 1997 in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action
No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net,
INC., et al., Defendants.

25 August 1997
Arnaldo Lerma resigns as Treasurer of F.A.C.T.Net.
SOURCE: "Resignation of Officer or Director" form as filed on 26
September 1997 with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.

15 October 1997
Dennis Erlich's attorneys at Morrison & Foerster file a "Statement of
Disputed Issues of Material Fact" in RTC and BPI v. Dennis Erlich. It
says, in part: "RTC and BPI have failed to prove they possess the
necessary ownership interest to sue for infringement of the copyrights
at issue in this case. Plaintiffs either have failed to enter any
evidence into the record to support their assertions of ownership or
there is evidence calling the evidence they have provided into dispute."
SOURCE: 15 October 1997 filing in United States District Court Northern
District of California, No. C-95-20091-RMW (EAI), RTC & BPI v. Dennis
Erlich

29 October 1997
A ruling is issued by the Superior Court of Los Angeles in the case of
Lawrence Dominick [sic] Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, et al.,
case no. C332027. Wollersheim, through his attorney, Daniel A. Leipold,
has filed a motion to amend his 22 July 1986 judgement against the
Church of Scientology of California. The motion requests to include as
real party defendants and judgement debtors the Church of Scientology
International and Religious Technology Center. The court grants the
motion, finding that CSI and RTC are "alter egos" of CSC. [EDITOR'S
NOTE: Almost beyond the ability to comprehend, Wollersheim and Leipold
have left CST completely out of it--unmentioned, unscathed, and
unencumbered. It becomes comprehensible only if evaluated against a sub
rosa collusion existing between Wollersheim and parties with interest in
CST. This is yet more evidence of such a connection--Ed.]
SOURCE: 29 October 1997 ORDER issued by Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Lawrence Dominick [sic]
Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, et al., Case No. C332027.

1 December 1997
A press release is sent out to national media--including Elizabeth
MacDonald at the Wall Street Journal--exposing for the first time that a
co-founder of CST, Meade Emory, is a former Assistant to Commissioner of
IRS. The full text:

PUBLIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED
Meade Emory, former Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service, co-founded Scientology's most senior
organization--Church of Spiritual Technology--according to recently
uncovered records of the United States Claims Court. Emory is currently
Director of the Washington State University Law School's Graduate
Program in Taxation in Seattle.
The Emory-co-founded Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," now controls the copyrights
for all of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual properties--once valued at
close to $100 million. CST also enjoys ultimate authority over all
Scientology-related trademarks, including the name "L. Ron Hubbard."
Emory was Assistant to the Commissioner of the IRS from 1975 through
1977. Strangely, those were the same years in which an IRS employee,
Gerald Wolfe, was covertly passing IRS documents to Scientology's
Guardian's Office. In 1976, Wolfe even provided forged federal I.D. to a
Scientology staff member, Michael Meisner, and together they used the
forged credentials to pilfer copies of documents from the IRS and other
federal agencies. Wolfe and Meisner's activities ultimately resulted in
federal criminal convictions against high-level Scientology executives.
Most notable among those was L. Ron Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard.
The fact that she was Hubbard's wife tended to overshadow more
important facts: Hubbard himself had disappeared in February of 1980
under mysterious circumstances still not satisfactorily explained, and
Mary Sue Hubbard--with the aid of the Guardian's Office--had been left
with the duty and the power to safeguard his copyrights and trademarks.
But in July of 1981, Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, losing her
long-held control over Scientology's copyrights and trademarks. Soon
after, the Guardian's Office was disbanded. Then by May of 1982--less
than a year later--Emory had helped to set up CST, the corporation that
eventually assumed control of all rights to L. Ron Hubbard's works.
According to the June 29, 1992 ruling in U.S. Claims Court case No.
581-88T, CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY v. THE UNITED STATES, "CST was
founded in 1982 by Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek,
Esq., and Sherman Lenske, Esq. CST..subsequently sought tax-exempt
status under the Internal Revenue Code."
That tax-exempt status was granted on October 1, 1993, in a sealed,
secret, 4"-thick agreement with IRS. None of the terms of the agreement
have ever been made known, either by CST or IRS. The only clue to any of
the terms came at the event celebrating the exemptions, when David
Miscavige, head of Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Scientology's
highest-ranking spokesperson, said, "There will be no billion-dollar tax
bill that we cannot pay!" Oddly, while proclaiming the long list of
Scientology entities that had received exempt status, Miscavige made no
mention of CST's inclusion--even though that is the senior-most
corporation of all, and the one that benefitted most from the sudden IRS
change of heart.
Other oddities have also surfaced:
1. According to the U.S. Claims Court ruling, "None of the founders
of CST, with the exception of Mr. Spurlock, has any stated religious
connection with Scientology."
2. The October 1993 IRS tax-exempt blessing on CST was granted just
months after Norman F. Starkey, executor of the estate of L. Ron
Hubbard, had finally secured control of every intellectual property ever
produced by L. Ron Hubbard.
3. On November 29, 1993, scarcely two months after CST had been
granted tax exemption, Starkey transferred the rights for all 7,730 of
L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual properties to CST.
Many questions remain regarding Meade Emory's possible role in
bringing about the tax exemption for CST, but questions also surround
Emory's fellow CST co-founder, attorney Sherman Lenske.
According to court records, "Lenske and two other non-Scientologists
have the status of Special Directors of CST." The two others are
Lenske's brother, attorney Stephen Lenske, and another attorney,
Lawrence Heller.
But Sherman Lenske's involvement goes all the way back to 1981. In a
sworn declaration, Lenske says he was hired in April 1981 to be attorney
"in all aspects of estate planning" for L. Ron Hubbard.
Therein lies another strange coincidence: Lenske appeared on the
scene only after Hubbard had disappeared, and only three months before
Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, then became a key figure in every step
that led to CST's take-over of the multi-million-dollar intellectual
properties she had previously controlled, and to which she was rightful
heir:
1. Lenske drafted all wills and trusts having anything to do with
final distribution of Hubbard's assets and intellectual properties.
2. Lenske was a consultant in the corporate restructuring that
created CST.
3. Lenske represented Norman F. Starkey, the executor of Hubbard's
estate, right up through the point when Starkey transferred the
intellectual property rights to CST.
4. In addition to his role as a Special Director of CST, Lenske is
its Registered Agent, is Registered Agent for Religious Technology
Center (which currently licenses the trademarks under CST's aegis), and
is Registered Agent for Author Services, Inc., which represents
Hubbard's fiction works.
5. Lenske created the fictitious business name, "L. Ron Hubbard
Library," filing it first for Norman F. Starkey's use as executor, then
filing it again in 1993 for CST, right after CST received all the
intellectual property rights from Starkey.
How did an attorney who does not even subscribe to the religious
philosophy of Scientology become its most influential figure, with
ultimate authority over the entire body of work?
What role did Meade Emory's inside-the-Beltway connections have on
the sudden, secret turn-around by IRS?
Is it possible, as one observer has speculated, that all of
Scientology went into receivership to IRS, and is now being run--as a
corporation--by the federal government?
Is that why the agreement is such a closely-held secret?
All these questions still wait for answers. But the
previously-suppressed connection to IRS may provide a new place to look
for them.
END OF RELEASE
SOURCE: Copy of a 5 December 1997 post of the press release to a.r.s.;
Information in messages posted to a.r.s., misc.taxes, and misc.legal, on
file

5 December 1997
The Public Research Foundation's "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND
SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED" press release is posted to a.r.s.
SOURCE: Copy of a 5 December 1997 post of the press release to a.r.s.

9 December 1997
F.A.C.T.Net "Director or Limited Liability Manager" and former President
Gerry Armstrong posts a comment on the "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND
SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED" press release. Armstrong's comment:
"Unquestionably this week's winner of the Farout Award. My psych masters
advised me to say that."
SOURCE: Copy of Armstrong's 9 December 1997 post to a.r.s.

15 December 1997
An Executive Summary of the Public Research Foundation's "HIDDEN TIES
BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED" press release, along with complete
supporting documentation, is hand-delivered to the office of Senator
William V. Roth, Jr., head of the Joint Committee on Taxation. The
Executive Summary is delivered into the hands of Roth's aide, Bill
Nixon, who expresses grave concern over it. [NOTE: The Joint Committe on
Taxation is the same committee to which Meade Emory had been
"Legislation Attorney" from 1970 to 1972, according to Emory's own bio.]
SOURCE: Information in messages posted to a.r.s., misc.taxes, and
misc.legal, on file

15 December 1997
Multi-millionaire and international financier Robert Minton is
publically welcomed to F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.'s Board of Directors.
SOURCE: Copy of a 15 December 1997 post to a.r.s. from "FACTnet
Management <manage@factnet.org>"

30 December 1997
The Wall Street Journal publishes a copy of the secret IRS Closing
Agreement between Commissioner of IRS and CST, RTC, CSI, et al. The copy
has been provided to WSJ by an anonymous source. The agreement itself
reveals that all signing parties had agreed to keep it secret, with
penalties for disclosure. [NOTE: To this day it is unknown who, from
which side of the table, released the secret document. There is no known
investigation that has ever been conducted by IRS. If they conducted
one, it was apparently a dismal failure.]
SOURCE: The Closing Agreement as published by the Wall Street Journal

15 January 1998
Through former Coast Guard Intelligence agent Joe Harrington, Larry
Wollersheim posts a message in a.r.s. saying, in part: "[T]he
corporations that claim to own Scientology's copyrights are not the
valid owners anyway and in essence have nothing really to protect or
lose. Also, if they don't find a way to get out of the Erlich and
Factnet cases before it all goes to trial and decision, they will have
all the fraudlently obtained copyrights and copyright protection
stripped from them publicly."
SOURCE: 15 January 1998 post to a.r.s.Message-ID:
<69lst3$8c7@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>

21 April 1998
In a private message to Dennis Erlich (which Erlich posts to a.r.s.),
Larry Wollersheim claims that F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. has "provided tens of
thousands of dollars of help to your [Erlich's] attornies [sic]
[Morrison & Foerster]." Erlich denies it.
SOURCE: Copy of 21 April 1998 message as posted by Dennis Erlich to
a.r.s.

1 c. June c. 1998
Decorated military remote-viewer Joseph McMoneagle says in an interview
that "Probably less than two percent of the information pertinent to the
program has been released; certainly almost none of the operational
data. A great deal of the research data is still classified as well."
SOURCE: "Psychic World" interview with Joseph McMoneagle, Summer issue,
1998

5 July 1998
A "manual" for "Coordinate Remote Viewing" [see entry for 1 May 1986] is
made public for the first time, published on the internet. [EDITOR'S
NOTE: This so-called "manual" is the most obvious, transparent,
sophomoric piece of disinformation I have had the displeasure to
encounter in the entirety of the research for this Timeline--and this
research has certainly led through a dense, filthy, brackish swamp of
disinformation. Every detail of its creation, publication, and content
reeks of a massive disinformation operation initiated by CIA/DIA in
order to propagate a completely false and phony version of "remote
viewing." An introduction written by Paul H. Smith, Major, Ret.,
contains numerous proven lies. Smith claims, e.g.: "In 1983-1984, six
personnel from the military remote viewing unit at Ft. Meade
participated in training contracted from SRI-International. This was the
recently-developed coordinate remote viewing training, and the primary
developer and trainer was the legendary Ingo Swann." Although there is
no doubt that Ingo Swann did train military intelligence remote
vieweres, including Smith himself, Smith attempts to rewrite the history
of remote viewing, claiming that coordinate remote viewing was
"recently-developed" in 1983, when in fact it was developed no later
than 1973. This "manual" was embraced by the government's
megaphone-with-legs for Remote Viewing disinformation, Major Ed Dames,
who charged thousands of dollars to sell this and other tripe to
suckers. Unfortunately, Dames was caught with his pants down referring
to "anchor points" and to specific commands from a Scientology process
called "Grand Tour" in relation to remote viewing, and, of course, there
is not a single mention of any of that in this supposedly official
"manual." Finally, Ingo Swann was interviewed by Palyne "PJ" Gaenir--who
published the "manual" on the internet--and Swann made the following
statements: "I did not write it. ...I believe it was a group-written
document... I wasn't asked to participate in [the writing of] it. I
found out it existed sometime after. ...[P]lease say this first, then I
don't care what is said after that--I did not write it. I have never,
ever written a document like that." --Ed.]
SOURCE: Copy of the manual as published on the internet

26 July 1998
Robert Minton, who is now on the Board of Directors of F.A.C.T.Net,
Inc., posts to a.r.s., saying: "Jesse [Prince] will be devastating for
Scientology. Get ready!"
SOURCE: Copy of the 26 July 1998 post, Message-ID:
<35cea9cf.5497649@news.tiac.net>

28 July 1998
Jesse Prince writes an affidavit in which he essentially restates almost
the exact same allegations that Robert Vaughn Young had made nearly a
year before regarding 1983, David Miscavige, and the copyrights:
"In early 1983 I attended a meeting at Scientology's ASI
office in Los Angeles. In attendance at this meeting
were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran,
Patricia Brice and Edith Buchele. The meeting concerned
scientology copyrights. In particular, David Miscavige
stated that Scientology was 'in trouble' concerning the
copyright status of the many published materials of
founder L Ron Hubbard. Concern was expressed that many
of Mr. Hubbard's published materials had become 'public
domain' because the materials had not been registered
with the United States Copyright office for many years.
David Miscavige stated that Scientology had failed to
register copyrights for thousands of pages of
Scientology material written by Mr. Hubbard. These
records included the numerous policy letters and
bulletins published by Mr. Hubbard. ...At the same
meeting in early 1983 David Miscavige specifically
ordered Patricia Brice (who at the time was L. Ron
Hubbard's personal secretary and an employee of ASI) to
begin the process of mass copyright registration filings
for all of L. Ron Hubbard's materials. This order was
given despite the fact that Mr. Miscavige was already
aware that many of the materials in question were
already in the public domain. Thus, I know from personal
knowledge that in mid 1983 Scientology began a massive
program to register Mr. Hubbard's material with the
United State's Copyright office."
JESSE PRINCE
SOURCE: Copy of the 27 July affidavit of Jesse Prince

1 c. October c. 1998
An expos? called "CST and the CIA" is posted to the internet detailing
the roles of Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, and Pat Price in
the CIA-sponsored remote viewing program, and exposing for the first
known time the use of actual Scientology references that had been linked
to remote viewing.
SOURCE: Copies of usenet posts discussing the article, an the article it
self, on the internet at
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm

8 October 1998
Larry Wollersheim posts the following in a.r.s.: "Scientology is very,
VERY worried about the declarations of Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young
which describe Scientology's massive copyright registration fraud in
1983, when, they claim, Scientology scammed the US copyright office by
registering documents that have been in the public domain."
SOURCE: 8 October 1998 post to a.r.s. by Larry Wollersheim

13 October 1998
An anonymous poster with the handle "ace of clubs" posts an article
addressed to Jesse Prince in a.r.s., alleging that Jesse Prince, Robert
Vaughn Young (who the poster calls "RV"), Stacy Brooks, Joe Harrington,
and Larry Wollersheim (and, presumably, from the context, Wollersheim's
corporation F.A.C.T.Net), are part of a larger operation that CST itself
is a party to, as excerpted below. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Unfortunately, the
trash-mouthed "ace of clubs" defies paraphrasing. Here, therefore, are
the relevant excerpts, with following commentary --Ed.]
>From: ace of clubs <aoc@blackjack.no>
>Subject: A Belated Welcome to the RVY Replacement
>Date: 1998/10/13
>Message-ID: <199810122230.AAA02986@replay.com>
>
>))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
>
>Helll-l-l-l-l-oh, Jesse!
>
>Although I decidely am NOT the duly eeeee-leckted Welcome Wagon fer
>a.r.s.--lacking even the requisite four wheels--please allow me to add
>me own humble expression of salutations and salaams to celebrate yer
>arrival. I had sech a warm, close relationship with yer predecessor,
>RV, I feel it is my duty, and a dis-stinking honor, to make yer stay
>here in a.r.s., ah...warm.
...
>I noticed, too, that WallowSlime's own personal bow-wow Intel Agent,
>Joe Harrington--also linked to the good-old Snow White Op, and to
>Sharon Thomas--has jumped in to endorse yer ass--along with WallowSlime

>his own self.
>
>Well, I figure the ONLY possible explanation for Wollyslime's case
>having dragged out for SIXTEEN FUCKING YEARS is that it is, and always
>has been, part of yer op.
>
>It was, after all, part of THE catalyst for the big corporate shake-up
>engineered by Lenske that GAVE us CST, RTC and the rest of the fuckin'
>gang of misfit corporations (jest ax yer Handler, Stacy-the-Schtup, or
>read her affidavits), and has been there all along as the safety-net
>should anybody get onto yer fucking schemes.
>
>So, WallowSlime plays catcher for the copyrights and trademarks if it
>all really goes to hell, and, in the meantime, you have a nice foil to
>play both sides of the fuckin' game with, and to run up billable hours
>fer yer buddies, right? Don't bother--rhetorical question. (That's the
>new org stat fer all of Scientology now, ain't it: Billable Hours.
>Don't bother--rhetorical question.)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: In deciphering the colorful (cough) "ace-of-clubs" one
nonetheless finds the first public allegation of a collusion between
Larry Wollersheim/F.A.C.T.Net and Sherman Lenske/CST, with allusion to
"government handlers" being behind both. The post might have been
relegated to curiosa were it not for numerous corroborating
relationships that turned up in this timeline, coupled with a rather
stunning turn of events in the RTC/BPI v. F.A.C.T.Net litigation--which
occured just a few months after this post appeared in a.r.s. Hence it
has been placed in this timeline.]
SOURCE: Copy of 13 October 1998 "ace of clubs" post to a.r.s.

4 November 1998
In RTC/BPI v. F.A.C.T.Net/Wollersheim et al., Judge Kane issues an order
denying summary judgement, thereby sending the case to jury. In doing
so, Kane appoints a Special Master to deal with the complexity of the
copyright issues that have been raised, saying: "Given the number of
copyrights claimed in this case and the questions of fact relating to
their validity, the provisions of Fed. R. CiV. P. 53(b) regarding
complexity and exceptional circumstances have been met. The time
required of a jury to determine similar issues in regard to each of the
claimed copyrights, the failure of the parties to simplify the process
and the need to manage the trial time and resources of this court make
the appointment of a master prudent. ...Therefore, I appoint the
Honorable Charles E. Matheson, Chief Judge of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, special master with all
the powers described in Rule 53(c) vested in him. He shall prepare his
findings as to the validity, vel non, of each copyright claimed in this
civil action and his findings shall be submitted to the jury."
SOURCE: 4 November 1998

Ooooo! OoooOOOOooOOOO! Robbie Robbie Robbie! There it *is*! There is the
<PANT and HEAVE> *Special Master*! OoooOOOOooo. And he is supposed to
resolve alllll of these copyright questions and allegations about public
domain. Now, Rrrrrrrobbie, you little smart throbbie Robbie, if *you*
take the Copyright Registrations database and reconcile all the things
that *this* person was supposed to reconcile--but never got the chance
to, because of *certain* parties, which we are just about to see--then
*you* will be *my* very own personal "Special Master." <Grrrr!> And, O!
Will you ever be possessed of hard, *hard*, *HARD* *FACTS*!

I sure hope *somebody* is man enough to do it. Because-- Well, honey, I
don't know how to break this to you, but, despite all the fun we've been
having, I'm afraid-- Well, I don't know if it was that *grouchy* Mr.
potty-mouth "ace of clubs," or the planets got into a certain alignment,
or *what*! But all of this is about to come to a grinding, screeching,
glass-shattering, metal-rending, blue-smoking *halt.* Really,
*reeeeeeally* fast. You might want to strap in. Because here come those
"certain parties," the deus ex machina, to end the wholllllle show...

10 March 1999
A Biennial Report is filed with the Secretary of State of Colorado,
Corporations Division, for F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. It is a copy of the 6 June
1997 Biennial Report, and says that it amends that report. Under
"Officers Name and Address," the names and addresses of Lawrence D.
Wollersheim and Arnaldo Lerma are scratched through with pen. Typed in
next to them are "Minton, Robert S. PO Box 468 Sandown, NH 03873" and
"Brooks, Stacy PO Box 2698 Vashon WA 98070." Under "Directors or Limited
Liability Company Managers," the name and address of Lawrence D.
Wollersheim is scratched through with pen. Next to it is typed the same
information given above for Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks. It is signed
by Robert Minton as President, and dated 3 March 1999.
SOURCE: 10 March 1999 Bienneal Report as filed with Colorado Secretary
of State Corporations Office.

19 March 1999
A Settlement Agreement is signed by the President of F.A.C.T.Net--Bob
Minton--with RTC and BPI, acknowledging that the "Plaintiff's
allegations are well founded." As a result, a Final Judgement and
Permanent Injunction is issued in RTC/BPI v. F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., Larry
Wollersheim, and Bob Penny. Reproduced in full below:

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 95-K-2143
BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, a California non-profit[sic] corporation,
Plaintiffs,
V.
F.A.C.T.NET, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation; LAWRENCE
WOLLERSHEIM, an individual; and ROBERT PENNY, an individual,
Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Upon all of the proceedings in this action and pursuant to a Settlement
Agreement dated March 19, 1999, and upon Defendant FACTNet's
acknowledgement that Plaintiff's allegations are well founded, and good
cause appearing therefor:

I. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant FACTNet,
Lawrence Wollersheim, an individual and Robert Penny, an individual,
their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all persons in active
concert or participation with them, or any of them, who receive actual
notice of this Permanent Injunction are hereby and forever permanently
enjoined and restrained from:

A. Directly or indirectly copying, publishing, reproducing,
distributing, disseminating, performing, displaying or creating any
works, including any derivative works of the Works as defined in
paragraph C below, or any of them, in whole or in part, by any means 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, newsgroup, website,
ftp site or archives, or other electronic bulletin board 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 all such copies
which defendants, their agents, servants, employees 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
shall be removed as soon as reasonably possible, provided however, that
nothing herein prohibits otherwise lawful "fair use" of the Works.

B. Causing, contributing to or inducing any other person to engage in
any of the foregoing prohibited acts.

C. As used herein, the "Works" shall include but not be limited to the
following works, whether or not registered or published.

(1) All Advanced Technology Works, including those set forth in Schedule
1, which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

(2) All Works by L. Ron Hubbard, irrespective of the medium (i.e.,
whether in the form of writing, recorded lecture, audio-visual
reproduction or other medium);

(3) Any derivative Works, as "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C. ?
101, based upon the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, whether now or later in
existence;

(4) All Works published, created or owned by any Scientology
organization now or hereafter in existence, including but not limited to
Bridge Publications, Inc., New Era Publications International, Church of
Scientology International or L. Ron Hubbard Library, or their successors
or assigns, irrespective of the medium; and

(5) Any derivative of any of the foregoing, whether or not authorized,
whether now or later in existence; and

II. The Court being advised in the premises hereby enters Final
Judgment:

A. In favor of plaintiff, Bridge Publications, Inc., and against
defendant FACTNet in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00),
representing statutory damages under Section 504(c)(2), of the Copyright
Act, 15 U.S.C. ?504(c)(2).

B. Defendant FACTNet's, Wollersheim's and Penny's counterclaims asserted
herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

C. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Dated:______________________, 1999 __________________________________
John L Kane, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

SOURCE: Final order posted 28 March 1999 to the internet by
bob@minton.org (Bob Minton), Message <370286e7.10515103@news.tiac.net>

Awwwwww, Robbie, sweetie, I *know*! It's just the kind of thing that
makes me just shake all *over* sometimes, here late at night in this
creaky old library. And there went the <SIGH> Special Master. But,
Robbie, honey--I'm afraid that's not all. There's more: Now Morrison &
Foerster--you know, the ones with clients like IRS, SRI, DoJ--well, they
now have Dennis Erlich sign an agreement that results in a similar
Permanent Injunction. Very, very similar. Isn't that sad? I know? And
isn't it another one of those odd, odd coincidences how it all sort of
comes together at once? Well, be brave, sweetie pie; We're coming to the
end now. Here it is...

30 April 1999
Dennis Erlich signs a "Stipulated Agreement" with RTC citing 69 counts
of copyright infringement by Erlich assessed at $1,000.00 each. Erlich
is subject to a permanent injunction, reproduced in full, below:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
a California non-profit corporation; and
BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs,
vs
DENNIS ERLICH, an individual, Defendant.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. C-95-20091 RMW EAI

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Upon all of the proceedings in this action and pursuant to a Settlement
Agreement dated, in part <--[written in] April 30, 1999, which includes
a stipulated final judgment and permanent injunction to be ordered by
the Court, and good cause appearing therefor:

I. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant Dennis
Erlich, an individual, his agents, servants, employees, attorneys and
all persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of
them, who receive actual notice of this Permanent Injunction by personal
service or otherwise, are hereby and forever permanently enjoined and
restrained from:

A. Directly or indirectly copying, publishing, reproducing,
distributing, disseminating, performing, displaying or creating any
works, including any derivative works of the Works as defined in
paragraph C below, or any of them, in whole or in part, by any means 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, newsgroup, website,
ftp site or archives, or other electronic bulletin board 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 all such copies
which defendants, their agents, servants, employees and attorneys and
those in active concert or participation with them have caused to be
copied or copied onto Erlich's computers, or any of them, shall be
removed as soon as reasonably possible;

B. Causing, contributing to or inducing any other person to engage in
any of the foregoing prohibited acts;

C. As used herein, the "Works" shall include but not be limited to the
following works, whether or not registered or published:

1. All Advanced Technology Works, including those set forth in Schedule
I, which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;

2. All Works by L. Ron Hubbard, irrespective of the medium (i.e.,
whether in the form of writing, recorded lecture, audio-visual
reproduction or other medium);

3. Any derivative Works, as "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C.
[Section] 101, based upon the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, whether now or
later in existence;

4. All Works published, created or owned by any Scientology organization
now or hereafter in existence, including but not limited to Religious
Technology Center, Bridge Publications, Inc., New Era Publications
International, Church of Scientology International or L. Ron Hubbard
Library, or their successors or assigns, irrespective of the medium; and

5. Any derivative of any of the foregoing, whether or not authorized,
whether now or later in existence.

II. The Court, being advised in the premises, hereby enters Final
Judgment:

A. In favor of plaintiffs Religious Technology Center and Bridge
Publications, Inc. and against defendant Dennis Erlich in the amount of
Sixty-nine Thousand Dollars ($69,000.00), representing statutory damages
under Section 504(c)(2), of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. [Section]
504(c)(2);

B. Defendant Dennis Erlich's counterclaims asserted herein are hereby
dismissed with prejudice, and

C. Each party shall bear its own costs.

III. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over this matter.

Dated: _5/3__, 1999

[ signature ]

Ronald M Whyte
United States District Judge

SOURCE: Copy of 3 May 1999 Stipulated Final Judgement and Permanent
Injunction, posted to a.r.s.

And the final curtain slowly descends to touch the stage.

<SIGH> I don't know what to say, Robbie, honey. Oh, my goodness, look: I
think it's starting to get light outside. Well, now you know the exact
source of all the allegations about "deficiencies in the copyrights."
Now you know all about how it came to be. Now you know all the people
involved. Were they following a script? Or were they all acting on their
own? Do you think?

<SIGH> Yes, you probably do. Here's the Epilogue:

1 May 1999
Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks have resigned as directors of
F.A.C.T.Net.
SOURCE: Post to a.r.s. of 1 May 1999 by Rob Clark

1 December 1999
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. is "administratively dissolved."
SOURCE: 8 December 2000 "Periodic Report" and 17 January 2001
"Application for Reinstatement" as filed with Colorado Secretary of
State Corporations Office; also 3 August 2000 "RESIGNATION OF REGISTERED
AGENT" as filed with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.

And there ends this whole, tired, sad saga. At least for now. I have to
go home, now Robbie. And you do too! You need your sleep, and-- Oh my
*GOSH*! I have a *hair appointment* in, like, five hours!

But you still have your question about the reason for the BOTWO--"based
on the works of" L. Ron Hubbard--materials. Well, honey, *I* can't
answer your question. I would have to give you, like, a <GAG!> *theory*!

>There are two implications to this--one is that Scientology gets to
>keep perpetual copyrights on their materials. The other is that they
>only get to do so by permanent squirreling, guaranteeing an incremental

>but ultimate destruction of the tech.

But do they? *Is* that the reason for their "permanent squirreling?"
Better do that Title 17 homework, honey. And you're just going to have
to become a *Special Master," now, aren't you? OoooOOOo.

I gave you my little chart of how many things were registered when, and
how many of those were pre-1978. And now here's one of the *other*
little toys I promised you.

This is just the most *useful* little chart you can imagine for
understanding the 1978 copyright law and its relation to when a work was
created. Now, this even includes the *newer* copyright extension act
that Sonny Bono implemented before he got a little too familiar with a
tree. Or so we're supposed to believe. <SHUDDER> Let's not go into
*that*! This will help you *boys* understand some of this, courtesy of
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm :

WHEN WORKS PASS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
(Includes material from new Term Extension Act, Public Law 105-298)

====================================================================
DATE OF WORK PROTECTED FROM TERM
====================================================================
Life + 70 years[1](or if
work of corporate
Created 1-1-78 When work is fixed in authorship, the shorter
or after tangible medium of of 95 years from
expression publication, or 120 years
from creation[2]
====================================================================
Published before
1923 In public domain None
====================================================================
28 years + could be
renewed for 47 years, now
Published from When published with extended by 20 years for
1923 - 63 notice[3] a total renewal of 67
years. If not so renewed,
now in public domain
====================================================================
28 years for first term;
Published from When published with now automatic extension
1964 - 77 notice of 67 years for second
term
====================================================================
Created before 1-1-78, the effective Life + 70 years or
1-1-78 but not date of the 1976 Act 12-31-2002, whichever is
published which eliminated greater
common law copyright
====================================================================
Created before
1-1-78 but 1-1-78, the effective Life + 70 years or
published date of the 1976 Act 12-31-2047 whichever is
between then and which eliminated greater
12-31-2002 common law copyright
====================================================================

[1] Term of joint works is measured by life of the longest-lived
author.
[2] Works for hire, anonymous and pseudonymous works also have this
term. 17 U.S.C. [Section] 302(c).
[3] Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the
public domain upon publication. Works published without notice between
1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation
Act, retained copyright only if, e.g., registration was made within five
years. 17 U.S.C. [Section] 405.

That little chart is by Lolly Gasaway, with notes courtesy of Professor
Tom Field, Franklin Pierce Law Center. You should visit their web site
yourself.

>This is a subject that would interest many people, Scientologists,
>non-Scientologists, Walt Disney and the estate of James Joyce to no
>end.

Phooey. James Joyce wouldn't even have a *chance* trying to follow the
stream-of-unconsciousness that's been laid in to hide CST, and their
motives for squirreling, and connections. Maybe Walt Disney has time.

The little birdies are tweeting, Rrrrrobbie, my love.

*I* am going to go home and sink into a sweet-smelling bubble bath and
try to wash it all away. Then into my silky jammies and into my
feather-bed, and into dreams of you coming back to me as a Special
Master--OooooOOOooo--weilding hard, hard HARD *FACTS*!

So take your little toys I gave you and off you go. Oh my *goodness*!
Just *look* at me: no shoes, no hose, no bra! I am a bedraggled *mess*
Sheeeeeesh! I hope nobody sees us standing here in the doorway in the
early morning! No telling *what* they might think! I have to lock up the
old Library now, Rrrrrrrrrobbbie, my tired little scholar. Give us a
biiig kiss-- MmmmmmmmWAH! And now get your cute little fanny *home*!

--<The ARSCC Librarian>

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
*The ARSCC, like its just-bathed-and-softly-sleeping Librarian, does not
exist.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>

iQCVAwUBO6Bt5O1gRWXeKTRVAQFRFAP/XEPa4ezqUV0zszoyzHPrUsTKRTxPmxuF
TmVTBo6aO3PrvuVncU1GI6U5E7AZVttRJenCtIzBmTz8IwFaen0F94RPTDUWLvU9
WH9+OOkd5lRWrcGDt5DPaBL/BJmQNqNqAZUSqF17U6g+Xm4bTdxdYMbHoLTSV1Hg
k9nziXpHmvg=
=+des
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread