From: Rev Dr David Gerard Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Xenu The Magazine: The lawyer's letter has arrived Date: 19 Oct 1995 10:49:12 GMT Organization: Prestige Elite(tm) Cross-Office Broadcasting Unit Lines: 131 Message-ID: <465af8$rac@cougar.vut.edu.au> References: <465882$rac@cougar.vut.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.159.4.140 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) This is my immediate comments on the lawyer's letter. Please feel free to make your own comments, and don't forget to email them to me too. If you are an Australian lawyer with ideas, I am particularly interested. If you are an American lawyer, thanks but I'm not in America. Rev Dr David Gerard wrote: >I have no idea why it starts with point '6.' (Thought it might be paragraph numbers; it doesn't seem to be.) >We are instructed to comment in relation to this article as follows: >6. At the beginning of the article Mr Gerard states that "he has nothing >against Scientology per se" and that "(y)ou can do what you want. Not my >business." Nevertheless, throughout, the article is filled with vitriolic >comments which contradict these statements and are clearly derogatory of >Scientology. (Standard ambit claim; fog. It is barely possible a lawyer could turn this molehill into a larger molehill in Australia. However, provable truth remains a defense in Victoria.) >7. The statement that "... the Church of Scientology has spied on, >terrorised and attempted to discredit critics of the Church, ..." is >untrue; ('Bare-Faced Messiah' and 'A Piece Of Blue Sky' nail this one immediately. The activities of Gene Ingram -- they may be able to claim this is not the Church per se, plausible deniability and so on ...) >8. The comments that the Church harasses individual respondents and >systems administrators of the Internet newsgroup by making unfounded >accusations and even threats to the person's safety, are untrue; (This shows a lack of understanding of what they're talking about, and suggests to me that the Church here has told their lawyers their version of events. The newsgroup has no 'administrators'. They have unquestionably harassed posters to the newsgroup -- hkk's emails, the outing of TarlaStar, the harassment of henry -- but not sysadmins, I suppose. Unless Miss Bloodybutt can *definitely* be nailed as a Church agent. My phrasing in the original article implies that they did indeed harass administrators, which is an error on my part.) >9. The comment that the Church runs frivolous copyright suits to ruin >respondents financially is also untrue. Our client has the right to >prevent unauthorised breach of copyright in its material whenever and >wherever it occurs. Our client rejects that the simple protection of its >copyright material can be labelled "copyright terrorism". (The first sentence, well, ask Jon Atack. The second sentence, no problem. The third sentence, I'm sure they reject it; the issue is that they have gone beyond 'simple protection'.) >In our opinion the article is clearly defamatory and an attempt to hold >the Church up to ridicule. It is designed, notwithstanding Mr Gerard's >claim at indifference, to imply that our client is involved in improper >conduct in the protection of information and material which it is quite >entitled to protect. (No, it states improper conduct outright; and whether it is entitled to protect it in the matter it has is also questionable. That's the point of the article.) >The purpose of this letter is to place you on notice with respect to the >allegations regarding our client. We have recommended to our client that >it commence legal proceedings to seek declaratory relief and damages -- >unless a clear and unequivocal apology to our client and a retraction >of the matters referred to above are prominently published in the next >edition of "No Name". (They have recommended because they think this one can be played in court, even if they lose. I should note here that a great deal of defamation threats in Australia are merely in order to secure a retraction or a before-court settlement; most cases don't get near a court.) >We require, by 2.30 p.m. on Monday 23 October 1995, that: >(a) the format and wording of an apology and retraction be submitted to >this office for our approval; OR (This is more or less my plan -- talk it out as far as possible with the lawyers before court. Although I will be submitting a great deal of material suggesting they will lose.) >(b) you provide written notification that you have set aside an equal >amount of space for the Church to provide its own responses to be >published in full and without alteration in the next immediate edition >of "No Name" and that the Church be advised of the deadline for such >publication. (Not bloody likely.) >In the event that you fail to provide either of the above prior to the >deadline we are instructed to issue appropriate proceedings without >further notice. (The SRC President has said they're happy to run with this one, providing our truth is provable. Which it is.) -- David.