Re: EFF fund

On 23 May 1995, Parick J Volk wrote:

> In article <3pc5pi$6a@covina.lightside.com>,
> David Talbot wrote:
> >
> >I think that you have wasted your money then, because the real issue is not
> >your privacy and safety, this is what dishonestly some of those that have a
> >vested interest on ars have been trying to depict. The real issue is copyright
> >violation. Erlich has posted numerous materials protected by copyrights, this
> >is why the judge granted a TRO. That's the only reason.
> >
>
> The issue is fair use... Bear in mind that Dennis did not originally
> post the materials... Also, a reminder to everyone, if this was so
> flagrant, so cut-and-dried, wouldn't it be over by now?
>
> I think if the CoS had a cut-and-dried case, they would have
> 'slam-dunked' him, presenting the evidence, and getting it done...
> Hmm... they are hesitating in producing their evidence... Turning the screws?
> Why? I thought they were just defending their copyrights? No, they have a
> critic on the coals, and they want him to writhe a while, for the time
> being.
Remember, they are not suing because they think they can win. They are suing to *harass*, according to policy. It doesn't matter to them if they win or not. The act of harassment *is* the "win."

>
> Also, they apparently contacted his ex, and she consequently files for
> back child support. They mention it first, however... I don't think you
> should withhold child support if you cannot see your child. Children
> should not be pawns in anything.
>
A freind of mine told her ex she didn't want his money, just to be left alone. He didn't really want the kid, and he agreed it would be best for the kid if he did leave them alone. Now, she could at any moment sue him for back child support and probably get it.

Let's keep in mind that we are only spectators. Dennis is the only one that can live his life. We know we don't know the whole story, and that is all we know. We know this because we have yet to see 'evidence' from the Church of Scientology [tm] that is at all objective.

> The one thing I do hope is that this does NOT get settled out of
> court. I believe the CoS doesn't have as much as a case, as the pro's
> would lead you to believe. They're trying to twist the knife, and this
> goes beyond defense in many people's eyes.
>
fairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusef a a i "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause." -LRH i r r usefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairusefairu

> Now Vera is stating her opinion that maybe the EFF shouldn't aid
> Dennis, saying it actually might be against IRS regulations to do so. I
> do know that checks being sent to EFF are not being used to buy
> groceries, or limos for poodles-on-the-lam.
> Do me a favor, check with the IRS, if you haven't already. Then ask them
> if it's OK for a non-profit organization to pay people on commission. How
> much of church revenue goes toward charitable functions?
> Do me another favor, and tell me how you deduced Tarla's name from the
> operator, when the name on record for the number you allegedly checked
> when it was her husband/SO?
[schnip]

--------------------------------------m. council, human being Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd council@luna.cas.usf.edu be me. -Miles Davis -------------------------------------------------------------