🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.org.eff.talk, sthomson@netcom.com (shelley thomson) wrote:


>        **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for 
>        the shortcomings of the professional news media.          

>        Copyright 1995 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.  

>        Mail, articles and comment may be directed to <sthomson@netcom.com>.  
>        Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the
>        following:  harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the
>        net immediately.        

>                                     
>**Biased Journalism**  Volume I, issue 5    November 23, 1995  

>Contents: Lerma Trial Date; Milne Spills the Beans; Slam Dunk for 
>the Church of Scientology (Armstrong Hearing); An XMAS Gift 
>For That Special Someone; Rodent Report (Security Flap at Hemet); 
>T-Shirt Update.

>Read at your own risk.  This is **Biased Journalism**!

>1.  LERMA TRIAL DATE

>        The lawsuit brought by Religious Technology Corporation, an arm 
>of the Church of Scientology, against Arnaldo P. Lerma (critic), Digital 
>Gateway Systems (his service provider), the Washington Post, Richard 
>Leiby and Marc Fisher (reporters) will go to trial on January 29, 1996.  
>David Miscavige,  head of the church of scientology, will be deposed in 
>this lawsuit.  Last-ditch efforts by the church to quash his deposition 
>have failed.  

>        According to net information, a Motion for Summary Judgment on
>the trade secret charges by defendant Lerma's attorneys will be heard 
>on December 1, 1995.  [In earlier developments in the Colorado case 
>the church apparently abandoned its trade secret claims.  As we 
>understand it, the heart of the case is in accusations of copyright 
>infringement.]

>        We thank the sharp-eyed readers of Journal #4 who pointed out 
>to us that Leap Year Day is February 29, not January 29.  We don't know 
>what came over us.  


>2.  MILNE SPILLS THE BEANS        

>        On November 16 Andrew Milne <milne@crl.com>, church spokesman, 
>startled alt.religion.scientology by posting a choice exerpt from Arnie 
>Lerma's deposition.  In the selection quoted, Lerma comments that 
>Lawrence Wollersheim has an abrasive attitude.  We were freshly reminded 
>that Lerma's slogan is "I'd rather die speaking my mind than live 
>fearing to speak."   The whole document must make interesting reading, 
>worthy of a Scamizdat.  Did we say SCAMIZDAT?  

>        No one on ars had previously seen the deposition because it was
>placed under seal by Judge Brinkema at the request of the plaintiffs.  
>Milne's post presumably came as a surprise to the attorneys for Lerma 
>et al., and we are curious to see what the court will make of the matter.  


>3.   THE GERRY ARMSTRONG HEARING:  Slam Dunk for the Church  

>Dispatch from San Rafael:  October 6, 1995                               

>        October has been hot and dry.  Earlier this week intermittent
>Easterly winds fanned the inevitable grass fire into a major blaze
>near the town of Inverness and the Point Reyes National Seashore.  
>The smoke browned the sky in San Rafael.  The air smelled of burning 
>pine, a sweet and sinister fragrance.  

>        The county courthouse is a large building extended in wings over
>terraformed hills.  The wings are nearly identical in appearance and the
>parking lots are neatly symmetrical, offering hours of entertainment to
>dyslexics and people with a poor sense of direction.  

>        There were compensations.  The corridors of the building were 
>wider than some roads and the entire structure was immaculately clean.
>The personnel were white, well dressed and friendly.  The plants in the  
>atrium were intensely lush and green.  There were no crowds.  

>        The hearing was held in the courtroom of Judge Gary W. Thomas.
>We found our way there through handsome unmarked corridors and mysterious 
>floor designations apparently designed to foil terrorists by instilling
>confusion.  The courtroom was designed to be almost circular.  It was 
>richly paneled in dark wood.  The jury box and the public seating area 
>were semicircular.   The light fixtures in the ceiling were circular.  
>The room was a masterpiece of psychological design.  All attention was 
>focused on the judge; all power emanated from his platform.

>        The logistics quite were different than in San Jose and enforced 
>a different ethic upon the participants.  The counsel table was a semi-
>circle of dark wood below the judge, who towered over the cowering lawyers.  
>There was a spare piece of table on the side, but no one used it.  When a 
>case was called, the lawyers from both sides quickly came up to the table 
>and stood next to each other to give their presentations.  They felt, we 
>surmised, very much on the spot.  There was no sense whatever of 
>territorial hostility as we felt between opposing counsel tables in 
>San Jose.  [At moments in the Erlich hearings a drawn stiletto would 
>scarcely have been out of place.]  The lawyers focused entirely on 
>the Judge and were very, very polite.  They all spoke rapidly, for 
>reasons we were soon to discover.    

>        We had plenty of time to observe the scene.  The judge had a
>stack of folders in front of him that was at least eighteen inches 
>tall.  Everyone waited while each case was dealt with in turn.  We
>saw several arguments over attorney's fees, a sexual harassment case 
>(the judge threw it out), a constructive termination case which sounded 
>bad to us but met the same fate (dentist had a bad hair day and took it
>out on his hygenist, who quit and then sued).  We noticed that in many 
>of these cases the judge was being asked to change a ruling he had 
>previously given.  In each instance he refused.  Once in awhile an
>attorney tried to put in a last word.  "That's all," the judge said, 
>in a pleasant conversational tone.  And the attorney would say
>"Thank you, Your Honor" and gather up his papers and leave.  Fast.

>        The public seating was almost filled.  The jury box was full of
>spare lawyers, but there were a number of lawyers in the audience as
>well.  Gerry Armstrong was easy to find.  "He looks like Jesus," we
>were informed.  "You won't have any trouble spotting him."  Lo, it 
>was true.  

>        We scrutinized the audience for additional participants in the 
>netwar, but saw no familiar faces.  The, ah, *vibe* was different.  This 
>audience was very interested in something, but we concluded that it was 
>not Scientology.  

>        The truth surfaced when the judge called a case involving 
>easements in Bolinas.  A stir went through the audience and the lawyers 
>in the jury box sat up.  The case was complex, involving landowners, 
>contracts, zoning and efforts by an agency of the State of California 
>to (we inferred) take possession of the beach in Bolinas in the name of 
>The People.  Who were The People and what right did they have to tell 
>the good citizens of Bolinas what to do?  What did the contract really 
>say?  This was gone over quickly while the audience paid rapt attention.  
>The original contract involved some 40 landowners, but the case had now 
>expanded to include some 120 parties.  In the way of such things it had 
>become extraordinarily acrimonous.  [Where citizens in poorer places 
>reach for their guns, the people of Marin County call their lawyers.  
>Issues are as bitterly fought here as in the barrios; merely the weapons 
>are different.]  

>        "There is a status conference this afternoon, Your Honor," one 
>of the lawyers reminded.  "Yes, there is" the judge sighed.  A pause.  
>"How's it going?"  Everyone laughed.  No settlement was in sight.  
>Ground zero was expanding daily.   People were pledging their homes to 
>finance the struggle.

>        The lawyers were dismissed to sort it out.  Most of the audience  
>got up and followed them.

>        The next act was a lawsuit involving a restaurant.  The judge
>complimented the restaurant:  "Well, I did have a good bowl of clam
>chowder there,"  he declared, startling some members of the audience.  
>He deferred the case, as the restaurant's attorney had asked.  [Was 
>the judge making a clam joke?  We could not tell.]

>--intermission--        
>        
>        A brief recess was called.  We utilized it to introduce ourselves
>to Gerry Armstrong and have a brief chat with one of the audience.  Our
>target was a dark-haired man with a square, somewhat lined face and 
>striking, bushy eyebrows.  He was neatly dressed in a suit and obviously
>tired (we caught him napping during the sexual harassment case).

>        We introduced ourselves, and after due deliberation he gave his 
>name as Howard.  He was with OSA and had accompanied church lawyers
>Wilson and Bartilson.  

>        Howard looked surprisingly like an older version of Jeff Quiros, 
>[OSA-San Francisco] but the vibe was darker.  We guessed he ranked higher 
>in the organization.  He told us that he had been in scientology for a 
>number of years, that he was free to talk to anyone, and that he knew 
>very little of what was transpiring on the net.  He did not have a 
>computer himself.   

>        We asked if he had attained a lot of rank in the church.  (We 
>really wanted to know whether he had acquired any OT powers, but were 
>embarrassed to ask directly.)   He replied that he had been with the 
>church since 1971.    

>        We discussed the netwar.  He said "We have to defend our 
>copyrights."  "Well," we proposed, "before these raids and other 
>things happened alt.religion.scientology was a little backwater on 
>the net with 30-50 posts per day.  Perhaps 500 people read it.  Now 
>it's one of the most popular groups.  Every day more people read 
>it and get involved."  He nodded.  He knew about the expanding furor 
>in cyberspace.  "Now if the church had ignored Dennis Erlich, and had 
>not attacked the net, in all probability ars would still be a small 
>backwater populated by a few critics talking mostly to each other."  
>We had the sense that he agreed but it had not been his decision to 
>make.  In a moment of silence we reflected on the fate of a 
>corporation that lets lawyers decide policy.    

>        We wished for a longer intermission, in which to ask some
>pressing questions.  The opportunity to talk to a senior church
>member was rare and we found Howard a reasonable human being. Why 
>doesn't the church let people of higher caliber represent them on 
>the net?  -At this point the scientology lawyers returned, giving 
>us curious looks, and the hearing resumed.  

>--end intermission--

>        The next case was the Church of Scientology vs. Gerald 
>Armstrong.  The judge called it with audible relish.

>        Attorneys were Andrew Wilson and Laurie Bartilson for the Church
>of Scientology and Ford Greene for Gerry Armstrong.
>                                                    
>        Greene had asked for the hearing.  He wanted to discuss the
>tentative order.  

>        The background was this:  After several years with the Church 
>of Scientology Armstrong resigned.  He was subjected to harassment of 
>various kinds, including freeway accidents with automobiles driven by
>Scientologists, and together with some other people he sued.  The church  
>finally offered a cash settlement on the condition that Armstrong 
>dismiss his cross complaint and sign an agreement.  Essentially the 
>agreement stated that Armstrong et al. would not possess any Scientology 
>literature and would not discuss Scientology or the Church.  Greene 
>explains that if the judge's interpretation is followed, this means 
>the Church could accuse Armstrong of of being a liar, perjurer, etc. 
>and if he defends himself he is in violation of a court order.  

>[The cruelty of this arrangement bothered us on the way home.  Armstrong
>had given himself completely to the church; scientology was his life.
>To be rid of him the church gave him $800,000 and forced him to 
>forswear his past.  It was a faustian bargain.  We guessed that 
>the church knew what they did when they stripped him.]

>Greene wants the judge to find that the contract involved mutual
>confidentiality.  He argues that the agreement involved not only 
>information possessed by Gerald Armstrong, but pertained also to 
>information held by the Church of Scientology as to its former 
>parishioner.  He complains that the judge has not read evidence 
>Armstrong submitted supporting this argument.

>The judge wants to talk about contracts.  A discussion ensues with 
>respect to duress.  

>Greene responds that duress [as the judge sees it, absence of] is not
>the issue.  He says that Laurie Bartilson filed documents stating that
>the agreement was mutual.   The judge's ruling didn't incorporate those
>facts, he argues.

>The judge and Greene quickly go back and forth on the question.  The 
>judge sees it as a contract issue.  'You keep your mouth shut, we pay 
>you $800,000.' There is an agreement that if he opens his mouth he must 
>repay $50,000.  "He opened his mouth and they want $50,000 each time."  

>Cases are discussed.  Greene argues that the court needs to look at 
>the object nature and the subject matter of the contract.  He brings 
>in Judge Breckenridge's ruling, in which Armstrong is judicially 
>credited with telling the truth and the Church of Scientology is 
>judicially credited with very bad deeds.

>The judge comes back with a comment on the Church's claims: given the
>contract, Greene's argument logically suggests that Armstrong made 
>an agreement without the intention of keeping it.  

>Greene replies that Armstrong was paid the $800,000 to dismiss his 
>cross complaint, which was set to go to trial in three months 
>[immediately, as lawyers count time].  The cross complaint dealt with 
>harassment, including very serious incidents.  He says that both 
>parties made an agreement to keep their mouths shut and the Church 
>of Scientology broke it.

>The judge reads from a Los Angeles court order.  It says that mutuality
>cannot be read into the unambiguous terms of the agreement.  [The judge
>is a stickler for unambigious terms.]  

>Ford Greene counters that this is unfair.  The court order does not
>refer to Armstrong's issues.  

>The judge concedes that the court order is not the law in this case.

>Greene wants to build a case, something the judge is unwilling 
>to allow.  He complains that the judge keeps interrupting him; he is
>right.  Greene references another L.A. judge who thought the first 
>judge's order was one-sided.  He again refers to a document submitted 
>in the L.A. case, which Judge Thomas had overlooked in his ruling:  
>"...and that's the single most glaring omission, with respect, in your 
>tentative order."

>He relates that Armstrong found out that the Church of Scientology was
>appealing his case.  He went to the appellate court with a copy of the
>agreement.  The appellate court found that Armstrong could participate
>in defending his case on appeal.  

>Now the opposition had their say.  Andrew Wilson maintains that the
>courts have held that the agreement is not mutual.  He lists several
>judges.  Courts have granted summary judgment on several provisions;
>they haven't said the agreement is mutual.

>Greene responds quickly.  He has Heller's papers "...right here.  With
>respect, Mr. Wilson, you're wrong."  The court only looked at the 
>judgment.  It did not make a decision on the enforceability of the
>contract.  

>Judge Thomas steps in.  The beliefs of any of the participants 
>including Gerry Anderson are not relevant, he says.  He refers to a 
>summary of California law:  Rules of Interpretation of Written 
>Contracts.  Efforts to interpret must concern efforts to elucidate the 
>meaning of the words in which the contract is written.  Evidence cannot 
>be admitted to show intention independent of the instrument.  Therefore 
>Armstrong hasn't raised a triable issue.  His arguments about 
>obstruction of justice and the right to free speech are [beside the 
>point].  The ITT case shows that it is possible to waive even First 
>Amendment, free speech rights.

>Greene won't give in.  He states that agreement to a contract must be
>knowing and voluntary.  Further, Heller says it's mutual.  [Heller, a
>Scientology lawyer, was in the room when Armstrong signed the contract.
>Greene wants his sworn statement considered.]

>Laurie Bartilson tells the judge that there is videotape of Armstrong
>signing the contract.  He signed a statement saying he had discussed it
>with attorneys.  Etc.  This shows that Armstrong signed the agreement 
>voluntarily and knowingly.  

>Judge Thomas says, as he has done in every previous case that day, 
>"There is no reason to change my tentative ruling."

>Ford Greene argues fiercely with the judge.  The preliminary injunction 
>is broader than the language of the contract itself!

>The judge won't discuss the language.  We intuit that something is 
>discussable here, but the judge tells Greene that he has had twenty
>minutes and they are done.

>Greene continues to argue.  By this point other attorneys had left
>tamely, but he wants to get certain statements into the record.  
>Heller comes up again.

>The judge refuses to debate with Greene.  He calls the next case.

>The lawyers for the next case array themselves at the table, but
>Greene is still fighting.  Wilson and Bartilson come back to pick   
>up their Scientologist colleague in audience.  They are beaming.  
>"That boy's going to jail," Wilson remarks.  

>Meanwhile the judge states that Greene is interfering with another
>case and offers to have him "taken away."  

>Greene won't quit.  He is talking for the record, rapidly, arms
>waving.  The judge nods for the bailiffs.  A telephone call is made.

>Then, miraculously, it is over.  Greene gathers his papers and leaves,
>trailing Armstrong and a few supporters.  Greene is disturbed.  The
>outcome is not good.  He is visibly angry about it.  While he is 
>collecting himself a crowd of bailiffs materializes in his vicinity.  
>They have weapons and cellular telephones, but are amazingly polite and 
>low-key.  An attractive woman bailiff steps forward to ask if he has 
>calmed down.  He says he has.  They go away, leaving a few of their  
>number to watch from a discreet distance.  We surmise that Greene is
>no stranger to bailiff interactions.  

>It is still hot outside.  The smoke has spread out over the city in a 
>whitish pall.  The fire has gotten worse.  


>--Epilog--

>When Wilson and Bartilson came back to their seats at the end,
>looking extremely happy, we and the scientologist had a shared
>moment of rapport.  In that instant we both understood that the 
>Church has won, this time, but like every previous legal 
>action this one will turn into a p.r. nightmare.  

>Operation Foot Bullet is well on course.

>--Additional details-- 

>        In a subsequent conversation we talked with Andrew Wilson,
>attorney for the church.  

>        Since October 6, Wilson said, the judge confirmed his 
>preliminary order and issued an injunction.  If Armstrong violates 
>the injunction he can go to jail, Wilson explained, "but I expect 
>he would not violate the injunction."  [The image of this gentle,
>stubborn, unworldly man in prison moved us.  Some things are visibly
>unacceptable.  We suspected that it also moved Andrew Wilson.]

>        Wilson confirmed that his remark ("That boy's going to go to
>jail.") indeed referred to Ford Greene.  Wilson was unfavorably
>impressed with Greene's aggressive stance in court.  He thought this 
>behavior was rude to the judge who, Wilson said, had had a stroke
>and was physically impaired.  [In fairness we must say that despite his 
>infirmity the judge had no trouble asserting himself.]  Wilson, we 
>gathered, would not have been surprised if Greene had gone to jail, 
>which indeed nearly happened.  

>        We asked Wilson whether he were a scientologist.  He laughed.
>"No."  He was not offended by the question.  Everyone he meets asks 
>him this, he said.  It comes with the territory.  We asked how he felt 
>when he was first contacted by the church of scientology.  

>        Wilson explained that an old high school friend, Jeff Quiros, 
>had made the connection for him.  He went on to say that every 
>scientologist he had ever met had impressed him as a good and 
>worthwhile person.   

>        We had a cognition.  Lawyers think quite differently 
>than the general public.  *Of course*  Andrew Wilson was not put off
>by the church's reputation.  What better luck could an attorney
>have than an insatiably litigous client with unlimited funds?  No 
>wonder he looked happy in court.  

>        Interestingly, Wilson was unfamiliar with some actions of 
>the church which took place outside of the courtroom.  He seemed
>surprised to hear of the exploits of Eugene Ingram, for example.  
>However when we mentioned that Ingram's actions constituted 
>a public relations problem for the church, Wilson was unimpressed.  
>If it isn't a legal problem, it isn't a problem.  [This is, we 
>thought, because he does not understand what a p.r. problem on the 
>net really means.  If the church expects to club its critics into
>silence one by one, it is in for a surprise.]

>        Like many of the participants in the church side of the
>netwar, Wilson is unfamiliar with the net.  Although there are 
>several computers in his office, he has never taken time to go on 
>line.   We encouraged him to go on line and see what is happening 
>for himself.

>        We had a brief chat with Ford Greene.  He confirmed 
>that in the closing moments of the hearing he was desperately
>trying to get certain material into the record, and he knew
>he was pushing the judge to the limit.  We asked if attorneys had
>ever been jailed for contempt, and he said that it was not
>unheard of.  It had been a very close shave.   
>        
>        The next action in the case will take place on December 1.
>Greene's Motion for Reconsideration will be heard.  The court
>will also hear Scientology's Final Motion for Summary Judgment.

>        **Biased Journalism** will report this event.  Stay tuned.


>4.  CHRISTMAS GIFT GALLERY 

>For the A.R.S. regular who has everything:  

>We opened our latest House of Onyx catalog and were delighted to find 
>Opalized Clam Shell Fossils.  The ad says "Our Australian Clam Shells
>are fossilized with genuine White Opal...These Opalized Clam Shell
>Fossils are White with spectral flashes of color.  Those with more 
>color are priced accordingly higher.  Most of the Shells are within 
>the 20x25 mm range, weigh between 15-25 carats and are entirely 
>fossilized with Opal.  The physical details of the bivalves are intact."  
>[there's a picture.  They look beautiful.]  The ad continues,  "We 
>offer four qualities of Opalized Clam Shell Fossils.  Those at $50 
>and $75 will not be as smoothly covered with Opal as the $100 and 
>$125 Fossils and consequently will have slight matrix.     

>OPALIZED CLAM SHELL FOSSILS
>15-25 Cts., 20-25 mm     $50.00/each
>                         $75.00/each 
>                         $100.00/each
>                         $125.00/each."  
>Plus a hefty 30% discount for ordering  2 or more.

>The House of Onyx is an old, family-operated company dealing mostly 
>in gemstones, art objects and jeweler's supplies.  For their free 
>catalog and remarkably friendly terms of business, which include a 
>guarantee of satisfaction, call 1-800-844-3100 (except in Kentucky, 
>where the number is (502) 338-2363).  Same number to place an order. 

>No, we are not getting paid for this.


>5.  RODENT REPORT

>        [We take this opportunity to introduce our gossip column,
>compiled by staff member Arlene Fortiori.  Send your comments and
>hot tips to her attention at our **BIased Journalism** address.]

>Hotfoot at Hemet

>        A deer mouse at Hemet turned in this report:  On Monday, 
>November 13 there was a security flap at the Scientology base at 
>Hemet, which is coincidentally called Gold Base.  The deer mouse 
>said that it happened in the morning.  Concern was raised about a 
>possible high-level defector.  Security procedures entailed checking 
>on a quantity of gold bullion which had been stored in a secure vault.  
>When they went to check on it, they found that 7/8 of the gold was 
>missing.  There was no paper trail.  Security personnel almost had a 
>shootout over this, but discipline prevailed.  There was (they decided) 
>probably no connection between the missing gold and the alleged 
>defector.  The gold had to have been removed beforehand, possibly one 
>or two months ago.  The deer mouse thought it happened on the night 
>shift, and that a high-ranked person in the church gave the order to 
>make no records of the transfer.  A *very* high ranked person, the 
>deer mouse said significantly.

>        Security sent a message to higher management asking for 
>instructions (it went on).  Was this to be considered a theft, or an 
>authorized action?  If the latter, why were they not informed?  They 
>heard back, after a delay, but the response was ambiguous.  They were 
>essentially told to hold their position.  A colleague of the deer mouse 
>scanned the message and told us, reading between the lines, that the 
>author had no idea what had happened to the gold and did not want to 
>commit himself.

>        The lid is cranked down tight on this incident.  Nevertheless 
>we hope to hear more about it.

>The I-NET mouse was heard from again.

>        "They're looking for me," the mouse said reproachfully.  "I had 
>to move my nest."  It reported that it was running down the hall toward 
>the vending machine, intending to have an early lunch, when it happened 
>to pass an open door.  Jim Settle was in the room with his boss and one 
>other person, of whom the mouse could only see the feet.  The subject 
>of disc6ussion was the justification for the search of Arnie Lerma's 
>computer.  Judge Brinkema found the search to exceed the scope of the 
>writ, sternly rebuked the plaintiffs and ordered the return of the 
>computer and all its files.  The plaintiffs have refused to comply. The 
>mouse overheard Settle saying words to the effect that 'well, we'll 
>just say that when we looked at the computer we saw evidence of illegal 
>activity and we thought it was our duty to pursue it.'  He was 
>proposing a kind of citizen's arrest on Lerma's data.  The I-NET 
>lawyer did not think this would fly in the long run, but thought it 
>might delay things for a few months.  

>        Will this novel theory please Judge Brinkema?  Only time
>will tell.

>        __A. Fortiori


>6. The California 3-Strikes T-Shirt (Department of Miscellaneous 
>   Apologies):

>        Due to the volume of orders we have had to revise our 
>manufacturing plans.  Please bear with us.  Delivery will take a while, 
>but the shirt will be worth the wait.     

>------------------------------------------
>**Biased Journalism** is putting together a mailing list.  If you
>wish to be on it, please email us at <sthomson@netcom.com>.  


>                                The End