Re: Constitutional Protection (was Re: Is AB Dead? No, *he* is not dead)

cmiller@lightside.com (Chris Miller) wrote: >>In article cmiller@lightside.com (Chris Miller) writes:
>Actually Jon, I'm not worried about it. I happen to know the facts
>related to it and they are very very simple and lack all the modes of
>conspiracy that you and others have put into it.
And yet you persist in behaving like a twelve year old child, by witholding this information, yet dangling it before us. A well-adjusted adult would simply clear up the matter by posting the facts and their source. But you aren't a well-adjusted adult, are you, Chris, you're a Scientologist.

>There has been alot of assertions of irregularities put into the
>matter, and then from this a whole conspiracy by the Church of running
>various police departments around the world are asserted. This is
>just attempting to use what is a simple matter of a group attempting
>to enforce laws to protect its own rights to some sinister operation.
>That is not true and that is what my concern is. The simplicity is
>that a violation of law was discovered, police in Helsinki were
>notified and they acted on it. Julf actually cooperated. (He could
>have just destroyed evidence but he didn't.) There was no request for
>information on anything than the specific matter at hand. Justice has
>been done with regards to the concerned parties.
There have been, Chris, not "has been" (that's what L.Ron was) questions regarding the circumstances surrounding the raid. Your church has a history of using the laws to it's own ends rather than seeking true justice. Post the results of this supposed "justice." Quit behaving like a child and be forthcoming with facts.

>As a side issue, it is no secret that anonymous remailers are somewhat
>controversial in that they have been used to hide criminal activity
>world-wide. The fact that this was the first time that someone openly
>investigated back to reveal the identity of someone using it for that
>purpose has raised some hope on the part of A LOT of police and
>computer security professionals of restraining criminality in this
>area. This is a far cry from some attempt to suppress personal rights
>- which has nothing to do with it.
You know, many religious cults are somewhat controversial because they've been used to hide criminal activity world-wide. The fact that ordinary citizens are questioning the activities of these "religions" has raised some hope that their future criminal behavior will be reduced or eliminated. This is a far cry from any attempt at suppressing personal religious beliefs. It has only to do with the exposure of a criminal "religious" organization.

>In regards to the Erlich matter. If there were irregularities in the
>application of the law in this case, then it would have come out in
>the case already. IE, it was the Judge who issued the search warrant.
>It wasn't a bunch of renegades who entered his house. All who entered
>did so on the Judges order. The search was conducted exactly
>according to the law. The search did find evidence of copyright
>infringement which is evidenced by the fact that the Judge issued
>further orders restraining Erlich from engaging in such. No-one is
>trying to do anything else.
These questions have yet to come before the court. I believe you are jumping the gun. No evidence of copyright infringement has been presented before the court. A restraining order has nothing to do with a finding, it simply says that there is enough evidence to bring it before a court. I wonder if it's possible for you to be a bigger idiot?

-- Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy, A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping "Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986 <a href="http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html">http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html</a>