Re: Helena Kobrin threatens *YET ANOTHER* lawsuit!

In <3uktdb$ppp@news1.shell> hkhenson@shell.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes: >
>henry (anon2c9e@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>: I have just received in my email yet another of the disturbing
>: missives sent out scattershot by one Helena Kobrin, an attorney
>: representing the Church of Scientology, a vindictive and
>: paranoid organization which has recently declared war on the net.
>
>You lucky dog! That is good for a one level improvement in SP
>status and a 30% bonus in your payment by the ARS cult! *I*
>quoted *16* lines and have yet to see *my* letter. Helena, get
>crackin'. Keith Henson
>PS, has anyone from California been graced with one of these
>letter, or do ours come hand delivered with a summons?
>PPS, henry, any indication of how backlogged Helena is on these
>thing? How long should I expect to wait?
Perhaps if you reposted a few times. It did take her awhile with me. Has she complained to your sysadmin yet? Mine showed right after the point in the process where my sysadmin probably told her that my reply to her complaint to him satisfied him that she was blowing smoke. Had I known I wouldnt receive my love note until that occured, I would have answered him faster, but I saw no reason to rush.

My lawyer made two suggestions -

1) Dont let her anticipate any of your defenses in your response letter. Do not respond to the "merits" of her claim. Keep your response short and simple. Mine consisted of the following three lines:

I have received your letter Your claims are without merit For further discussions please contact my attorney at (insert e-mail address)

Once she's on notice that you have an attorney, she breaks a rule and gets a complaint letter filed with the CA bar, if she has any further direct contact with you. Only provide an e-mail address for the attorney.

Resist the urge to tell her what to stick in her pipe, argue trade secret or copyright law with her. For instance, arguing that your postings didnt violate copyright law starts in effect with an admission that you made a posting. Since she already knows that, and plans to ignore it, that buys you nothing. In light of the fact that the illegal cancel bunny has been running around deleting many of the posts, and the Stanford archives no longer have those posts, she will have to prove in each case, without an archive copy, that you did post such an article, and that you did not later realize it was copyrighted and delete it yourself to comply with her remedy demand (thus making the suit moot). For that, she'll have to put the cancel bunny on the stand to admit he committed federal crimes. That will work at the first hearing, where an FBI agent will be waiting in the back with handcuffs.

2) Homeowners who receive the letter should send a copy to their homeowners' insurance carrier with a note pointing out the penchant for frivolous complaints and the fact that all complaints to ISPs were summarily dismissed as baseless. Also, point out the detailed work done by MoFo on the issue already and get permission to consult them (permission because your insurance picks up the tab). -- ********************************************************* *charles oriez, sp4 coriez@ix.netcom.com* *"The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself * *bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon * *consideration of all the above factors." 17 USC =A7 107* *********************************************************