---start paste---
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Sinnott [mailto:tsinnott@bereskinparr.com]
Sent: March 26, 2002 3:08 PM
To: Scott Duncan
Subject: www.entheta.ca/caroline

Our Reference: 9138-38

By E-mail (scott@nx2000.net)

Scott Duncan
NX2000 Research Coalition
78 Walmsley Blvd.
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1X6

Dear Mr. Duncan:

We are Canadian intellectual property counsel for the L. Ron Hubbard Library, Church of Scientology International ("CSI"), Religious Technology Center ("RTC") and Bridge Publications, Inc. ("BPI"), non-profit religious corporations located in Los Angeles, California.

Our clients are the owner of the intellectual property rights, including the copyright, to a large collection of materials related to the Scientology religion, including photographs of L. Ron Hubbard and other individuals, artwork displayed in various Scientology publications, and official Scientology symbols (the "Copyrighted Works").

As you know, Ava Paquette of Moxon and Kobrin, U.S. counsel for our clients, sent you a letter dated 30 January, 2002, asking you to shut down a website, at the internet address www.entheta.ca (216.95.190.78), containing a large number of unauthorized reproductions of our client's Copyrighted Works. We understand that you responded by converting the entire site to a pdf file which can be downloaded from one of your websites ast the address www.entheta.ca/caroline.

Please be advised that converting the website to a pdf file does not avoid copyright infringement, but rather, it makes you liable for direct copyright infringement.

We have reviewed your internet service provider's acceptable use policy, available at www1.worldcom.com/ca/aup, and note that it includes the following provision:

The Worldcom Network may be used only for lawful purposes. Transmission, distribution or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, constitutes an illegal threat, or violates export control laws.

We therefore demand that you remove all unauthorized reproductions of the Copyrighted Works from your websites immediately. If we do not receive a cooperative response prior to 2 April, 2002, we will ask your internet service provider to disconnect your websites from its network.

Yours truly,

--
Timothy J. Sinnott B.S., M.Sc. (Phys.), LL.B.
Bereskin & Parr
Box 401
40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y2
Canada

Direct Dial: (416) 957 1694
Main: (416) 364-7311
Facsimile: (416) 361-1398
e-mail: tsinnott@bereskinparr.com
Internet: www.bereskinparr.com

This communication and any attachments may contain information that is privileged or confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately then delete this communication.

Thank you

---end paste---

---start paste---
From: Caroline Letkeman <carolinel@telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Fair Use/Fair Game--Response to Ava Paquette
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:49:21 -0800
Message-ID: <sio86ugsvmn3umnm6momp1ibvmevlrek01@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Trace: 8 Feb 2002 18:49:17 -0500, 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 8 Feb 2002 18:49:17 -0500, 216.232.125.58
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 1208
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1431263

Caroline Letkeman
104-9275 Mary Street
Chilliwack, B. C.
Canada V2P 4H5
carolinel@telus.net

February 8, 2002

Ava Paquette
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
AMPaquette@aol.com

RE: http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/
Decoding Scientology Propaganda
Fair Use/Fair Game

Dear Ms. Paquette:

I have become aware of correspondence between yourself and Scott Duncan, coordinator for a network that hosts http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/, "Decoding Scientology Propaganda." As I state on the site introduction: This site is a critical summary of my exploration into Scientology's doctrine, its origins, and the symbols Scientology uses to represent their organization. It is published under Fair Use and in the public interest.

Your e-mail of January 23 to Mr. Duncan and his response are webbed here: http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/paquette-o-gram.opnx. You allege in your letter that I am guilty of some 58 infringements of the copyrights and trademarks of your Scientology corporate clients.

It is terribly dismissive of you, and bad faith, but not unexpected, that you did not send a copy of your letter to me. You sought to have my voice against Scientology's impious practices shuddered into silence without even advising me of your attempt. You treat me this way as directed because I'm fair game.

Your letter is, of course, very similar to an e-mail letter dated August 6 2001 that Helena Kobrin of your office sent me, making a similar set of allegations of infringement. I responded to Ms. Kobrin's charges by letter August 14, 2001, and have been awaiting Ms. Kobrin's response ever since. Now you too act as if my letter, in which I explained to Ms. Kobrin why her charges were without merit and false, didn't exist.

So that all parties know what my earlier response to your office's charges was, I am including it here in its entirety:

To facilitate discussion, I will include here the US Code Section cited above:

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

You state in your January 23 letter that my unauthorized use of copyrighted materials of your named "clients" (Hubbard Library, CSI, RTC and BPI) violates United States and Canadian copyright law. This is, as you know, a willful and professionally inexcusable lie. My unauthorized use of the copyrighted materials I used not only does not violate U.S. and Canadian copyright law, it is expressly permitted by both countries' copyright law. As a copyright attorney you know this, and as a Scientologist you know you lie because I'm fair game. As a Scientologist attorney, of course, you are paid to lie.

To facilitate discussion, I will include here the relevant section from the Canadian Copyright Act:

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and

(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

It is by both wog ® and your Scientology standards abundantly clear that I am a critic involved in criticism. I am a widely known reviewer of Scientology, having spent 24 years inside studying its various components; I am a scholar, having, after leaving Scientology, taken up scholarship, an impossible activity inside; I am an educator, educating wogs® and Scientologists alike in decoding the Scientology cult's propaganda, including, and particularly, decoding your cult's symbols in your propaganda campaign. Some of Scientology's symbols requiring decoding are, ineluctably, the registered trademarks you say I've infringed. I have in all instances, as fair dealing necessitates, mentioned on Decoding Scientology Propaganda the source and author of the images or other copyrighted material used.

Scientology's agents on alt.religion.scientology, as I'm certain you know, identify me as a "critic" and lump me in with other " critics" of $cientology. Thus there is no justification for your not acknowledging in your legal threat letter my being a very active, practically prolific, internationally known, and award-winning critic. In fact it was my award-winning criticism that brought David Miscavige and his Scientology underlings to first fair game me. If you had acknowledged my being a critic involved in criticism, of what is so extraordinarily criticizable, you would naturally have had to acknowledge my fair use right to display the copyrighted materials of your clients that I did display for criticism. Criticizing your images, marks and symbols, which is what on Decoding Scientology Propaganda I do criticize, permits, indeed requires, my fair use display of your copyrighted images, marks and symbols. You must pretend I'm not the critic I am in order to ignore the critic's fair use right I so obviously possess, in order to be able to use the law to harass and to fair game Mr. Duncan and me.

Being in truth considered a critic by Miscavige and the other people running Scientology, per Hubbard scriptures, I am also considered to be and treated as a criminal, as a SP. Your bosses' clear intention is to have me continue to be treated by Scientology and Scientologists as a critic, and fair gamed, while you pretend I'm not a critic in order to deny me the fair use right critics are granted by copyright law. You lie about me to make me fair game so you can lie about me.

Due to your policy and practice of treating all critics of your enterprise as criminals, that is to say, as your fair game targets to be silenced, ruined utterly and destroyed, the number of critics criticizing what in Scientology calls out for criticism is tragically reduced. Thus those critics remaining and still willing to criticize your cult have an even greater fair use need, purpose, and right than do critics of an entity which does not fair game them.

The Berne Convention, which you cite to, states:

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.
(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html

Thus, in addition to the U.S. and Canadian copyright laws, the Berne Convention also expressly permits my use of the subject copyrighted materials. Clearly my use of the Scientology copyrighted materials I used is compatible with fair use, fair dealing and fair practice. The extent of my use of your images, marks and symbols is in perfect agreement with the purpose for their inclusion - discussion, criticism, scholarship and education. As an aside, if your clients practiced fair practice instead of fair game, there wouldn't be much of anything about them to criticize.

As you know, since you use this law so extensively in your particular part on the Scientology legal front in its war on us wogs ®, in accord with the Berne Convention, both the U.S. and Canada have copyright legislation to expressly permit, for purposes identical to the purposes of the Decoding Scientology Propaganda site, the utilization of copyrighted works like those of your clients by way of illustration for teaching. As I stated above, I have in every instance provided the source of the copyrighted work and, wherever available, its author.

The threat in your letter to Mr. Duncan that he may be liable for 58 copyright infringements you tell him I'm guilty of, when it is obvious to you, being a copyright attorney, that I have not infringed any copyrights on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda site, and that my use of your clients' subject copyrighted materials is expressly permitted, indeed encouraged, by national and international copyright law, is just further baseless, criminal fair game against me.

Your standard Scientology "copyright infringement" attack is but a part of a concerted fair game campaign against me personally, operated, as you are, by David Miscavige. As you know, the various organization entities involved have refused, without a shred of justification, to return the money each of them ripped off from me, despite my having advised Miscavige personally. In fact, not one of the various organization entities involved, including Miscavige himself, except for a covert letter from IAS, even acknowledged my demand.

As you're also aware I'm sure, this past year Miscavige ordered my daughter turned against me and disconnected from me. She has been brought to view me as one of your "suppressive persons," as someone to be hated and, as is clear in your latest "suppression" promo, shattered. It's obviously a term determined by Scientology, but the use of the term is strangely fitting, since shattered families, shattered minds and shattered hearts are the product of the application of Scientology, certainly under the direction of David Miscavige. If my own daughter, whom I love with all my heart, can be brought to hate and fair game me, how much greater is your hatred and how much deadlier your fair game, you who are paid to hate and fair game me.

I noted a pronouncement by "CO OSA" Mike Rinder in an article entitled "The IAS: The Nemesis of Suppression" in a recent Impact Magazine: We won't stop until those SPs have been shattered ... Because we do have the tech and the truth. Rinder directs the shattering to "terminals," to living, breathing, loving human beings, identified as "SPs." Rinder employs lawyers like those in your office for this campaign to shatter those SPs like me. Scientology, and all you Scientologists, as Rinder affirms, base your shattering of wogs ® whom you deem to be "SPs" on your possession of the tech and the truth.

You and Scientology's entire SP-shattering war machine will never stop, because the determination you have-to never stop until the SPs like me are shattered- is based on your possession of the tech and the truth. Since as a Scientologist you cannot acknowledge that you do not have the tech (to do what Hubbard/Scientology claim, of course) nor the truth, you must participate in the shattering of SPs, as I say, like me. The difference in the life of every Scientologist, and the difference in the activities of every Scientology organization, that possessing "the tech and the truth" makes, is that you get to shatter SPs, in fact you get to conspire, organize and even get paid to shatter SPs.

Everything that you, and Miscavige and the rest of the Scientology operation, have done and everything that all of you have not done signals that you are ratcheting up fair game. You personally are working to take away my voice in the world against fair game, and you threaten me just because I am fair game. I consider what you are doing tortious and criminal, and I ask you to act immediately to withdraw yourself from your cult's fair game campaign against me.

I believe it is your nasty habit, pursuant to the Scientology legal doctrine of using to law to harass, to shudder people and ISPs into silence with just the sort of baseless copyright infringement-joint tortfeasor threat you make against Mr. Duncan. It is no wonder your office and the Scientology cult you " represent" are known across the web as Internet terrorists. Your reputation for making baseless, but very real, threats to suppress and destroy wogs' ® fair use rights, for which, with the requisite malevolent intention, the law can be very easily used, supports my certainty that your threats against me are baseless, and convinces me of the rightness of standing up to your clients' suppression and their continuing effort to destroy me, and destroy fair use for everyone.

You state that your "clients have obtained numerous permanent injunctions concerning Internet infringements of copyrighted works around the world." You are boasting about the results of Scientology's campaign to destroy copyright rights. Your cult's injunctions, judgments and other judicial rulings against free speech advocates and activists, and scholars and critics like myself, are the results of the fundamental Scientology legal doctrine of using the law to harass, and employing lawyers like you who are willing to use it for that illicit purpose. Scientology's legal triumphs are nothing that decent Scientologists, if any exist, can ever be proud of.

The Virginia US District Court case, the result in which you are so proud of, is famous, not for the judgment the Scientology organization obtained against the free speech defendant, but for the US District Court Judge's identification, and clearly her condemnation, of your cult's purpose in bringing that copyright infringement action:

Although [Scientology] brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents.

You now pursue the same unlawful purpose for your copyright infringement " case" against me-to stifle my criticism and dissent and to destroy me.

You also boast of the Scientology cult's obtaining "assessed damages in the amount of $75,000 against a Mr. Henson for copyright infringement of a single work on the Internet." Again that is nothing any decent Scientologist can ever be proud of. The $75,000 signifies the reality of your cult's unlawful litigation purpose, that you really will pay millions to destroy someone for " infringing" a single work, that the threat of being destroyed by the Scientology " legal" juggernaut is very real. It is widely known that lawyers for the Scientology cult were able to get U.S. District Court Judge Whyte in the Henson case to ignore the real and illegal purpose for bringing the action, and to strip the defendant of his defenses and witnesses.

Perhaps Judge Whyte in fact did know what Judge Brinkema in the Virginia case discovered, that Scientology was using copyright law and his courtroom for the unlawful "stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents." But whether Judge Whyte knew of Scientology's real and illegal motivation or not does not make your cult's litigation motivation any less illegal.

I believe that your clients' wins you boast of in the European cases you referred to are also ill gotten. They are similarly successes for Scientology and Scientologists no decent people will ever be proud of. They are proof that your intention, your clients' intention, and the intention Hubbard installed in the Scientology system, of stifling of criticism and dissent destroying your opponents, is global in scope and menace.

But even with your global army of lawyers and Scientologists all on- purpose carrying out command intention to stifle criticism and dissent and destroy your opponents, your "wins" are not even pyrrhic victories, but complete lies. Your Dutch case, which must have cost millions, to stifle and destroy writer Karin Spaink and her ISP, XS4ALL, resulted in a dismissal of all charges, and complete judicial support for Ms. Spaink's fair use right to display or publish everything your cult and you lawyers tried to suppress.

Through their courageous and successful fair use defense against your Scientology cult's attempts to destroy fair use rights, Ms. Spaink has become a global fair use inspiration, and XS4ALL a freedom-fighting legend among ISPs. I think that http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/ot8a.html on Ms. Spaink's site is an excellent example of the authority and extent of wogs' ® fair use right. The Dutch court has clearly permitted Ms. Spaink to use the totality of this document, the copyright of which is "owned" by your cult clients, in her criticism of them.

Similarly your reliance on Rogers v. Koons, 751 F.Supp. 474, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) aff'd, 960 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 934 (1992) to support your threat to Mr. Duncan that the reproduction of a single photograph in its entirety constitutes copyright infringement is completely bogus. You know very well, and withhold as key facts of the case, that defendant Koons produced an edition of three sculptures, selling for over $100,000 each, from the single photograph taken by plaintiff Rogers. And you know equally well that my Decoding Scientology Propaganda site and all of my use of your clients' images, marks and symbols are absolutely non-commercial. Rogers v. Koons, in fact, only enhances my fair use right to do all the things you improperly use that case to suppress and to threaten me for.

You complain that words and symbols I used on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda site for purposes of discussion, criticism, scholarship and education are identical to the form in which they are used as Scientology trademarks and service marks. Naturally this must be the case, indeed is necessitated by the fact that it is these very marks which I discuss, criticize and explain on the site. Moreover, as you certainly know, Scientology has a policy and practice of suppressing criticism, scholarship and education about itself by, among othertechniques, attacking critics and educators for not using "source" materials, or for " forging" or "altering" " source" materials, or taking the part of Scientology being discussed or criticized "out of context." Thus critics of Scientology, or people educating others about Scientology, have an even greater need and fair use right to display Scientology's words or symbols, as much as is practical, in an identical form to how they are used by the cult, than the fair use need of critics of wog ® groups which do not, as your cult does, suppress criticism and attack critics.

You also complain that my use of these numerous marks is not authorized by your clients, and therefore may constitute copyright infringement. Of course your clients don't authorize my use of their copyrighted materials or their many marks. Your clients seek to use the law to suppress and destroy discussion, criticism, scholarship and education. My legal authorization comes from Canadian, U.S. and international copyright law, which supports and encourages discussion, criticism, scholarship and education, and my use of your clients' images or marks does not in any way or instance constitute copyright infringement.

The following passage from the Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers, 14th edition, University of Chicago Press, 1993, has been a helpful guide for my fair use decisions:

The right of fair use is a valuable one to scholarship, and it should not be allowed to decay through the failure of scholars to employ it boldly. Furthermore, excessive caution can be dangerous if the copyright owner proves uncooperative. Far from establishing good faith and protecting the author from suit or unreasonable demands, a permission request may have just the opposite effect. The act of seeking permission establishes that the author feels permission is needed, and the tacit admission may be damaging to the author's cause.

All of your Scientology clients are known world wide as utterly uncooperative copyright holders; thus wogs ® such as Ms. Spaink or myself involved in Scientology scholarship must employ our right of fair use with utter boldness. I needed no authorization from your clients to use any of their copyrighted materials in the manner, form or context in which I used them, because of my fair use right, and because it would be damaging to my cause, certainly with your clients being who and what they are, to seek authorizations I didn't need. Since it is your cult's clear and command intention to suppress and destroy all fair use rights, and hence all criticism, scholarship and education, for every wog ®, not to mention Scientologists, I also exhort my fellow wog ® critics, scholars and educators, not just by example but by active appeal, to likewise "employ our right of fair use with utter boldness."

You say that my fair use display of the Scientology cult's images and marks could result in a depreciation of the cult's, or some corporate entity's, goodwill. This is a virtual impossibility. Whatever "goodwill" Scientology, David Miscavige, Scientologists, and Scientology agents like yourself, enjoy for your Scientology operations and associations, is not goodwill at all, as the law considers goodwill, but a cloak for bad acts and evil intentions. Any criticism of Scientology, as it is now operates, necessarily "depreciates" your cult's claimed goodwill, because its goodwill, and the goodwill of all of you, is a lie, a part of the continuing fraud, and because any criticism necessarily must see through your cloak to your bad acts and real intentions.

Scientology and its founder are now known by me, and are known around the world, to be, exactly what Judge Paul Breckenridge identified in his judgment in your cult's first lawsuit against Gerry Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C420153:

In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil-rights, the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

I am of course aware that you, and the whole Scientology machine, will treat me especially suppressively and subject me to your vilest level of fair game because of my closeness and connection to Gerry Armstrong. I am aware that Mr. Miscavige must have every Scientologist, and certainly you lawyers, view each instance of Mr. Armstrong's assistance to me in defense against your legal fair game, as a violation of the "judgment" you've obtained against him in California. Since I encourage, in fact induce him to help me, all of you must view me as acting in concert with him and thus subject to the same judgment.

I have seen that the "judgment" your office, under Mr. Miscavige's direction of course, obtained against Mr. Armstrong, and continues to try to enforce, enjoins and restrains Mr. Armstrong from directly or indirectly discussing, or even mentioning, Scientology or Scientologists or any of their lawyers, private investigators, etc. I have also seen that your judgment enjoins and restrains "persons acting in concert" with Mr. Armstrong from directly or indirectly discussing, or even mentioning, Scientology or Scientologists or any of their lawyers, private investigators, etc. I am just such a person, acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong in every way I can to facilitate and participate in the discussion of your cult, of its lawyers, of Hubbard, of Miscavige, of Scientologists and your PIs. You, on the other hand, are a personal "beneficiary" of this "judgment" against Mr. Armstrong, a " beneficiary" of his enforced silence, and you are one of the persons you do not permit him to directly or indirectly discuss.

I have seen that your judgment against Mr. Armstrong enjoins and restrains him, and persons acting in concert with him, from, directly or indirectly, [f]acilitating in any manner the creation, publication, broadcast, writing, filming, audio recording, video recording, electronic recording or reproduction of any kind of any book, article, film, television program, radio program, treatment, declaration, screenplay or other literary, artistic or documentary work of any kind which discusses, refers to or mentions Scientology or your cult, its cultists, or lawyers or agents like yourself. Again, I advise you, and all of you, that I am acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong in every way possible, and moreover that it is my sincere intention to do what I can to facilitate and participate in a discussion of all of you, and my Scientology experiences and Mr. Armstrong's Scientology experiences, in as many of the media your cult proscribes as will take our words.

It is my understanding that although your "judgment" restrains and enjoins Mr. Armstrong from discussing his now 33 years of experiences in relation to Scientology, your cult, Scientologists and their agents of all kinds, you and the rest of the Scientologists, all the organizations and all the agents insist that the judgment permits any or all of you to say or publish whatever they want about Mr. Armstrong or his experiences, no matter how untrue, perverse or defamatory. It is also my understanding that you, Scientology, all Scientologists and all agents of your cult insist that your judgment prohibits Mr. Armstrong from responding in any way to whatever you or any of you say or publish about him, again no matter how untrue, perverse or defamatory. And it is my understanding that the Scientology cult and its lawyers have in fact on multiple occasions prosecuted Mr. Armstrong for responding to defend himself from your cult's untrue, perverse and defamatory attacks on his reputation, character, livelihood, person and associates.

Clearly then, since I am acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong in every way possible, you and your Scientology bosses cannot but insist that I am, as the judgment states, identically restrained and enjoined from discussing our experiences in relation to Scientology, your cult, Scientologists and their agents of all kinds. You also cannot but insist that you, the cult, Scientologists and all the agents, like yourself, can say or publish whatever you want about me, no matter how untrue, perverse or defamatory, and that I am restrained and enjoined from responding to defend myself. Such a "judgment" and concept, of course, could not but encourage you, the cult, Scientologists and your agents to say or publish all manner of black PR about me, as you all have about Gerry Armstrong, just because you believe the judgment permits no response. Although your California judgment against Mr. Armstrong incites all of you to fair game me more than you would without it, since it's a license to fair game me with impunity, I still will violate it because acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong is worth your increased deadly threat.

I have seen that your judgment against Mr. Armstrong enjoins and restrains him, and persons acting in concert with him, from, directly or indirectly, assisting any person who has a claim against any Scientology entity, any Scientologist entity, or any entity agent, or is even thinking about a claim against any of these entities. Clearly I am such a person. I have a claim against the Scientology cult for the more than $61,000 USD that various of its component organizations ripped off from me, with false promises and mental degradation, over a 27 year period. I have a claim against your cult and your leaders for their outrageous conduct, egregious lying and the criminal defrauding of me of 24 years of my life. I have a claim against your cult for your alienation of my daughter pursuant to your noxious disconnection doctrine. I have a claim for the Scientology cult's delivery to me of my auditing files and all other personal records of my involvement in the cult. I will take this opportunity to renew these claims to you as an agent of the Scientology cult and its components. The Scientology cult, and certainly you as their agent, have thus far only responded with the fair game Judge Breckenridge identified and condemned eighteen years ago.

Clearly you and your cult will insist that Mr. Armstrong is restrained and enjoined by your "judgment" from directly or indirectly assisting me in my claims. Clearly too, because I am acting in concert in every way with Mr. Armstrong, you and your cult must also insist that I am restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly assisting myself in my own claims. You must insist that I am restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly assisting Mr. Armstrong, since he has his own multitude of claims against your cult for twenty years of your fair game and your ongoing criminal conspiracy to destroy his human and civil rights. And you must insist that I am restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly assisting any other wog ® who has been victimized, targeted or abused by your cult and thus has a claim against any of you.

I have seen that your "judgment" against Mr. Armstrong enjoins and restrains him, and persons acting in concert with him, from, directly or indirectly, assisting any person defending herself from attacks from any Scientology entity, any Scientologist entity, or any entity agent, or even in any adverse legal relationship to these Scientology entities. I am just such a person, a target of another of your cult's notorious fair game campaigns. You, Ms. Paquette, are threatening me and executing this legal attack upon me as part of this fair game campaign, and I must defend myself against your attacks and your cult's campaign. I am aware that your cult clients must insist that by your California "judgment, " Mr. Armstrong may not, directly or indirectly, assist me in any way because I'm a defendant against your fair game campaign directed at me, that I may not assist him, directly or indirectly, because he's a defendant against your fair game campaign directed at him, that neither of us may, directly or indirectly, assist anyone else who might be trying to defend himself or herself against any other of your fair game campaigns, and that I may not, directly or indirectly, assist myself in my own defense against your fair game campaign directed at me.

I have seen that your office and the Scientology cult have obtained orders against Mr. Armstrong requiring his payment to your cult of $50,000 USD per mention of his Scientology-related experiences or any mention of you " beneficiaries" in his defense from your black propaganda and fair game attacks. I have seen that your office and Scientology have obtained orders in enforcement of your " judgment" against Mr. Armstrong, which jail and fine him for mentions of you "beneficiaries" in his defense from your black propaganda and fair game attacks. I have also seen that your office and your cult have obtained multiple warrants to have Mr. Armstrong hunted down and arrested by law enforcement units for his mentioning of you "beneficiaries" in his defense from your black propaganda and fair game attacks.

I have seen that your office and your cult have obtained orders against Mr. Armstrong requiring his payment to your cult of $50,000 USD per instance of assisting anyone, directly or indirectly, of course, in the person's defense from your fair game attacks. I have seen that your office and Scientology have obtained orders in enforcement of your "judgment" against Mr. Armstrong, which jail and fine him for any instance of assisting anyone, directly or indirectly, in the person's defense from your fair game attacks. And I have seen that your office and your cult have obtained multiple warrants to have Mr. Armstrong hunted down and arrested by law enforcement units for instances of assisting wogs ®, directly or indirectly, in their defense from your fair game attacks.

Since I am acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong in every possible way, but particularly in every wogs' ® defense from your fair game attacks, you must insist that I am subject to the same $50,000 in " damages" per mention or per act of assistance. You all must also insist that I am subject to the same fines and imprisonment for any mention of Scientology or any of you judgment "beneficiaries" or for assisting any wog ® who is defending against your fair game attacks. And you must insist that for any mention of Scientology or any of you judgment "beneficiaries" or for assisting any wog ® who is defending against your fair game attacks I be hunted down and arrested by law enforcement.

I am certain, however, that in Canada, such prohibitive conditions, stripping someone of the right to defend himself and others against your dangerous and criminal fair game conspiracy, by stripping him of his basic human and civil rights, would be ruled to be illegal, and judicially impermissible. If your California "judgment" were not clearly and beyond argument illegal here, you would, without a doubt, have long since sued Mr. Armstrong into oblivion. But he has been discussing your cult, your cult's founder, its leaders, David Miscavige, cult lawyers, cult PIs and your cultists, all of the "beneficiaries, " plus discussing his experiences, plus assisting victims and targets of your cult's fair game campaigns like myself, here in Canada in exercise of his basic human and civil rights for almost five years.

Certainly your Scientology cult has the necessary funds to buy the necessary corrupt Canadian lawyers to prosecute in Canada, here in Chilliwack, B.C., all the judgment enforcement actions you could possibly manufacture against Mr. Armstrong. Therefore I conclude two things: Scientology's legal/intel apparatus has not been able to buy the necessary judges in Canada/B.C./Chilliwack; and that even the most corrupt lawyers' loonies can buy here will not use the unbought Canadian courts to enforce your "judgment" just because it is so clearly illegal and unenforceable.

I am therefore completely confident that your cult and you cult lawyers have no legal basis whatsoever in Canada to prevent Mr. Armstrong from assisting me in my defense against your fair game attacks and in your fair game " legal" activities. I am equally confident that you have no legal basis to prevent him in Canada from discussing, in any medium, any or all of you Scientology "beneficiaries" and any or all of his experiences with or knowledge of Scientology, Hubbard or any of you. I am also equally confident that because your " injunction" is illegal and unenforceable as to Mr. Armstrong in Canada, it is equally illegal and unenforceable as to anyone such as myself acting in concert with him.

I am so completely confident that your "injunction," which on its face prohibits me from acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong, is illegal here in Canada, and that any efforts by your Scientology cult to enforce such an illegal injunction against me here would be themselves illegal, that I urge every wog ® who is a target of your cult and its fair game machine to act in concert with Mr. Armstrong in every way in our mutual defense, and for our mutual pressing of our claims against the cult. We are a class, targets of Scientology's, and your illegal policy and practice of using the law to harass. I urge all of us, every wog ® who has ever been threatened or felt threatened by Scientology's use of the law, or by its actions outside the law or outside normal wog ® bounds of decency, to act in concert with Gerry Armstrong.

That all your "legal" actions and "wins" in California in restraining, enjoining and silencing Gerry Armstrong are illegal here in Canada, which, as I point out, they obviously are, convinces me that the " legal" actions you took and the success you boast of against Keith Henson in California may very well be similarly illegal in other jurisdictions. Indeed, your "legal" actions and your successes in California against Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Henson and your other wog ® adversaries may very well be illegal even in California.

Because, however, your cult and you cult lawyers are still able to use the law in California to harass, and specifically to enforce your otherwise illegal "injunction" against people such as myself who act in concert with Mr. Armstrong, I will not enter California at this time. I will not at this time risk being ruined at $50,000 USD per mention of my cult experience, like the mentions I make on a.r.s. I will not risk $50,000 per direct or indirect assist I might give to any of Scientology's myriad victims or fair game targets. Nor will I risk at this time being, as I would be in California, hunted down, arrested, jailed and fined. Obviously there is a problem in a State, or in the U.S. itself, where judges permit their courtrooms and their powers to be used by the criminal Scientology cult, as in the Armstrong and Henson cases, to harass.

I will therefore, as a citizen, not submit to the courts of California but take this matter of this extraordinary threat in California, and for that matter in the whole U.S.A., against me, against my most basic and valuable human rights, and against the wogs ® with whom I act in concert against the menace which is your client, to Canadian and American legislative and diplomatic bodies, to the United Nations, to world courts and to forums at the highest international level accessible to me.

I believe that you and the cult leaders you represent will be forced to acknowledge that the "injunction" which prohibits me, or anyone, acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong from, directly or indirectly as ever, discussing any of you, or your cult, or Hubbard, or anyone's Scientology knowledge or years of experiences, or prohibits me from assisting wogs ® anywhere against your cult and all of you, is illegal. I believe you all look extremely and willfully petty and foolish for not having already acknowledged the unenforceability and illegality of your effort to restrain and enjoin wogs ® such as I acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong.

When you acknowledge, of course, that anything wogs ® acting in concert with Mr. Armstrong say or publish about you, your clients, etc., and that anything wogs ® acting in concert with him do to assist their fellow wogs ® against any or all of you, is not, and cannot be, legally restrained and enjoined, you must perforce acknowledge that Mr. Armstrong's identical actions cannot be legally restrained and enjoined. He is restrained equally and enjoined equally with those wogs ® who act in concert with him if the injunction is legal and legally enforceable against them, which it is not, and he is equally as completely unrestrained and unenjoined as those wogs ® who act in concert with him if the injunction is legally unenforceable against them, which it so clearly is.

I believe that Scientology, Scientologists and its lawyers like you know you are using the law to prosecute and punish Mr. Armstrong for saying and doing things all of you also know he cannot be legally prosecuted and punished for saying or doing. And that is precisely what you are doing with me. You pretend to ignore my statutory fair use right in order to threaten and black PR me for acts you know are not violations of your cult's copyrights. You pretend your illegal California injunction is legal to shudder me and people like me into not acting in concert with Gerry Armstrong in defense against your fair game campaign.

You assert in your January 23 letter to Mr. Duncan that my unauthorized use of your clients' trademarks on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda website has caused Mr. Duncan's name to be falsely associated with your client's registered marks and created a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of this my site in violation of U.S. state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), various state and federal laws, in addition to Canadian law. To facilitate discussion, I will include here the section from the Lanham Act you refer to:

Sec. 1125. - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term ''any person'' includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

I will also repeat, and include here, the Lanham Act section that is actually relevant in this matter, and which, to concoct a "basis" your fair game "legal" threats, you fail to acknowledge:

Sec. 1125.
(b) Remedies for dilution of famous marks
[ ] (4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
[ ] (B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

As is made abundantly clear on the Decoding Propaganda site, as I stated in my earlier letter to Ms. Kobrin, and as I state throughout this letter to you, my use of your clients' marks is for noncommercial criticism, noncommercial scholarship and noncommercial education. There is nothing even faintly commercial about my site. You ignore this obvious fact, which makes my use of your marks completely inactionable, just so you can threaten "legal" action against Mr. Duncan and me as part of your fair game campaign.

Your assertion that my fair use of your clients' trademarks on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda website has caused Mr. Duncan's name to be associated with your Scientology cult's marks and created a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of my site, is obviously a barefaced lie. Even if you meant that my fair use of your clients' trademarks on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda website has caused the site name to be associated with your Scientology cult's marks and created a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of my site, your assertion would still be a lie.

As I state in my letter of August 14, 2001 to Ms. Kobrin, which I have included in its entirety above:

I state very clearly on my legal and disclaimer page on the site, which I sent to Ms. Kobrin with my August 14, 2001 letter, and which I include in its entirety above:

Quite clearly, your assertion that my fair use use of the Scientology cult's marks created a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of my site, is a barefaced lie. Even beyond the clear and prominent statements on the site, which I have requoted in the preceding paragraph, however, Mr. Duncan has added your letter of January 23 and his response very prominently to the site.
See http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/paquette-o-gram.opnx.

Your own words now on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda site make it absolutely clear that none of your Scientology cult clients is the source of my site, and none of your cult clients sponsors my site. Your words show that you are unmistakably unconfused about who owns and who sponsors my site, and your certainty concerning its actual ownership and sponsorship will now be conveyed by your own words to anyone who navigates to the site. If, despite what you've stated, you are actually not unconfused about who owns and who sponsors my site, please advise me and I will ask Mr. Duncan to make this clear as well on the site.

Mr. Duncan's words added to the Decoding Scientology Propaganda site in his response to your letter also make it even clearer that none of your Scientology cult clients is the source of my site, and none of your cult clients sponsors my site. Mr. Duncan states, prominently and boldly on his new cover page for every reader:

Thank you for your interest in Caroline's works.

http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/
There is no doubt Mr. Duncan is completely unconfused about who owns and who sponsors my site, and is doing nothing to generate such a confusion.

But you and all of you are generating a "confusion" where no confusion exists, just to be able to fair game us. I am aware that Scientologists will state as truth pretty well whatever they're ordered to state, that they can certainly confuse themselves on command, and, of course, that your organization is, as Judge Breckenridge states, schizophrenic, but I still don't believe there's anyone you can produce who will sign an affidavit for you complaining
that after reading my site he or she thought it was owned and sponsored by your Scientology corporate clients.

If you can produce a person, Scientologist or wog ®, who, after reading my site, thinks it is owned and sponsored by your Scientology corporate clients, I would like to have my psychiatrist examine him or her. If you cannot produce such a person, who, after reading my site, thinks it is owned and sponsored by your Scientology corporate clients, you know you must immediately withdraw your threats and propose an amends project.

Mr. Duncan repeats his statement as to my site's ownership and sponsorship in his response to your letter: "the works of Caroline are in tact." He also mentions his knowledge of your clients' illegal motive for trying to shut down my site and his opposition to their, and your, fair game campaign:

Knowing your litigious nature, it is unlikely this will satisfy you, as your REAL motivation is to silence the information contained in the document, and not protect copyrights at all! I REALLY disapprove of your Machiavellian methods.

There is nothing whatsoever in anything I created for the Decoding Scientology Propaganda site or what Mr. Duncan has added to the site which would lead any somewhat sane person to the cognition that your Scientology cult, whose motives and methods Mr. Duncan, thankfully, criticizes and opposes, is its owner or sponsor.

Since Mr. Duncan supports me in my defense to your cult's attacks, he is acting in concert with me. Since I support Mr. Duncan in his defense to your cult's attacks, I am acting in concert with him. For our mutual defense, and every wog's ® mutual defense, against Scientology's attacks, of course, we act in concert with Gerry Armstrong, and he acts in concert with us. Anyone reading anything about your clients knows that no Scientology entity, or Scientologist, or any lawyer or agent, would ever act in concert with Mr. Armstrong.

The obvious exception is in your cult's covert ops against him where Scientologists or your agents pretend to act in concert with him in order to get close to him to be able to perpetrate various crimes against him; but as a rule, Scientologists who are not pretending to be wogs ®, and any agent of the Scientology cult not a double agent, will never act in concert with Mr. Armstrong. Therefore, as a good faith gesture, I will ask Mr. Duncan to add to my Decoding Scientology Propaganda site a banner or image I'll create stating clearly and boldly that the site is acting in concert with Gerry Armstrong. I think other site owners you've threatened, based on your same mythological likelihood of confusion, might also want to display the image to make it very clear that none of your cult clients and no one connected to the Scientology cult operation owns or sponsors their site. "This site is acting in concert with Gerry Armstrong."

As another good faith gesture, I will also ask Mr. Duncan to add this letter to my site, because it is a good statement of my opposition to the Scientology cult as it is now being operated. None of my writings now on the Decoding Scientology Propaganda site provides such a clear statement of my opposition, to your clients as parts of the cult, and to their antisocial policies and practices, such as "black PR," "fair game" and using the law to harass, as you're doing here. Therefore this letter on the site will make it even more unbelievably clear that the Scientology entities I criticize for these abhorrent actions are not the site's owners or sponsors.

You say that your Scientology clients' trademarks are distinct, unique and famous, and that, accordingly, my use of these marks for purposes of discussion, scholarship and education dilutes and tarnishes the distinctiveness of the marks. As you are well aware, my noncommercial fair use of your Scientology clients' marks is specifically permitted and encouraged by law, regardless of whether such noncommercial fair use diluted and tarnished the marks' distinctiveness. My fair use of your clients' marks did not, however, in any way dilute or tarnish their distinctiveness. This is simply another baseless allegation by you to give the illusion of validity to your "legal" fair game.

The distinctiveness, uniqueness, fame and tarnish of your cult clients' marks, are, as you can imagine, worthwhile subjects for discussion, scholarship and education. Your extremely bad faith effort and your cult's effort to suppress and eliminate discussion, scholarship and education concerning your cult's marks is itself worthy of discussion, scholarship and education. In all of this, it is in every way legally permissible, to display your marks, no matter how wonderful, sacred or divine they are, how distinct, unique and famous, or how demonic or infamous.

It is really the fact that in the wog world ® Scientology is more infamous than famous that makes your clients' marks so worthy of discussion, scholarship and education. It is also your clients' infamy, not my fair use of their marks, nor my fair use decoding of their propaganda, nor even my criticism of their infamy, which will lose them customers, and income. If people who view the materials on my site are led to themselves decode Scientology propaganda, to cognite on your cult's infamy, to have nothing to do with Scientology, to leave Scientology, or join the opposition to your infamy, that is how it should be. That is proof that the site is educational. Education about a fraudulent, dangerous cult such as Scientology should properly result in people being able to decode the cult's propaganda, in their cogniting on the cult's infamy, in some of them having nothing to do with the cult, in some of them leaving the cult, in some of them opposing the infamous cult's infamous policies and practices, and, one would also postulate, in the cult's loss of income.

The inclusion of your cult's images, marks and symbols in the scholarship on my website assists education, even makes education possible at all, since the subject being taught is decoding Scientology propaganda. As even you will admit, I'm certain, your Scientology cult clients makes extensive use of their marks in their propaganda, and, I assure you, decoding their propaganda must therefore make extensive use of these marks.

As you of all people are aware, decoding Scientology propaganda is serious scholarship. No Scientologist, even yourself, is capable of decoding Scientology propaganda, or even permitted to decode your cult's propaganda. In fact, your job is to is to prevent its being decoded, to hammer out of existence any attempt to decode your cult's propaganda, and to close the door on criticism, scholarship and education.

My job is to keep decoding Scientology propaganda, to keep studying your cult's symbols and symbology, to keep displaying the results of my scholarship, and to keep educating people about your infamy, about your propaganda, and about your fair game war to destroy wogs ® like me and to destroy our precious wog ® sacraments of fair use, criticism, scholarship and education. I assure you that to keep decoding Scientology propaganda, and to keep boldly employing my fair use right, I must display, and will keep displaying, your marks, images and symbols. If there is any scholarship on my Decoding Scientology Propaganda site that is in error factually, please do advise me, and I will be happy to make appropriate corrections. Your cult's and your ferocious fair game efforts to close down my site and destroy my scholarship based on your phony, manufactured charges of copyright infringement, however, must cease immediately.

Being a " copyright attorney" for the Scientology cult, you are aware of this statement by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340, 349(1991):

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.

You and Scientology, of course, try to get copyright law to do the very opposite of what Justice O'Connor writes is its purpose. You use copyright law to discourage others from building freely upon the ideas and information conveyed in your "works." You use copyright law to suppress out of existence any study which decodes your propaganda, and to destroy criticism, scholarship and education. By destroying criticism, scholarship and education, you and your cult seek to stop the progress of science and art. That alone is enough reason for someone such as myself, a wog ® who seeks to advance, rather than stop, the progress of science and art, to do the study on Decoding Scientology Propaganda I have done, and to oppose your cult's suppressive policies and actions as I do.

Pursuant to Miscavige command intention, you have manufactured the inanity, indeed impossibility, that I do not possess the fair use/fair dealing right, I do possess, as a critic, as a leader in the field of decoding Scientology propaganda, as an educator, as a mother, as your cult's victim, or as its ongoing fair game target. You manufacture this inanity in order to generate a "legal" conflict or controversy, and the resultant "legal" channel, by which your cult can flourish and prosper by ruining me utterly. You and your cult use your concocted inanity to trample on my copyright rights, and copyright rights of everyone; for the greatest copyright right of all is the right of fair use.

If you acknowledge my indisputable fair use/fair dealing right, which I clearly do possess, to display your images, marks and symbols for the purpose of criticism, scholarship and education, your "conflict" or " controversy" and your "legal" opportunity to fair game me disappear. You have invented this "conflict" because I am fair game, and copyright law, just as any part of the law, can be used very easily, as your boss's command intention states, to harass.

Considering the misanthropic nature of Scientology, its founder and its present boss of bosses, and your cult's goals of world conquest and the crushing of wogs ® and our civilization's great treasures, I, and all wogs ® everywhere have an inalienable right to expose by copying, displaying, publishing and disseminating anything and everything your cult clients say, display, publish or disseminate. It is not necessary, however, to litigate, or even consider, your Scientology cult's Marcabiavellian nature, nor Hubbard's or Miscavige's nature, nor your clients' evil intentions toward wogs ®, even fair game wogs ® like me. If Hubbard was not a complete fraud and the author of fair game, if Scientology was not at war with wogs ®, and even if I was not your clients' fair game target, my use of the images, marks, symbols and any other copyrighted materials of your Scientology corporation clients on my website is still fair use and still completely permitted by all relevant copyright law.

The action I request of you is to immediately acknowledge to Mr. Duncan and me my right pursuant to Canadian, U.S. and international copyright and trademark laws to display the images, marks and symbols of your clients which I have displayed, and as I have displayed them, on my site Decoding Scientology Propaganda for the purposes of discussion, scholarship and education. It might be good to make a public acknowledgement to this effect, but if you don't, I will do so when I get your ack in response to this letter.

I appreciate your courtesy and attention to this matter. For any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Caroline Letkeman

Copies to:

Scott Duncan Scott.Duncan@nx2000.net
Karen Spaink kspaink@xenu.org
XS4ALL admin@xs4all.nl
Keith Henson hkhenson@cogeco.ca
Arnie Lerma alerma@bellatlantic.net
Lisa McPherson Trust info@lisatrust.net
Gerry Armstrong gerryarmstrong@telus.net
alt.religion.scientology
Electronic Frontier Foundation
David Miscavige
info@scientology.net
bcc: Media list

---end paste---