At 07:38 PM 5/16/96 -0500, snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> wrote: [snip]
No, rich is a good excuse for _not_ doing it, unless it can be done with total anonymity. If I set up a remailer, on my home computer, as an individual, then I am a very little target. I have nothing (well, damn little) for anyone to sue me over. What would be the point? They threaten to sue me for what? They would spend FAR more than they could ever get out of me, and as long as I don't violate any laws, I _might_ be able to get "big guns" like the ACLU, EFF etc. on my side to make it a nasty fight for no return. [snip]
This assumes that they are trying to win. Hubbard said, "The purpose of the suit is to harass..." CoS has a huge legal coffer, and they've used it against people who weren't rich before. They're not after the money from the lawsuits, IMHO -- it's miniscule compared to the amount they make in their bait-and-switch scheme (where they sell people on Dianetics and then lead them down the path to ridiculous OT powers). That's what they're fighting to protect.
From this perspective, the person without money is a much easier target, IMHO -- they don't have the resources to fight back against sustained and intense legal pressure (as well as illegal harassment by PI's and other agents) and will probably cave. That's the return.
Judge Brinkema, in an opinion last November in the "Church's" case against the Washington Post, DGS, and Arnie Lerma, wrote: "The Court finds that the motivation of plaintiff in filing this lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible. Although the RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon law as a tool to [h]arass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harrass and enough harrassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." CoS are the biggest threat to the remailers right now, and it's a mistake to view their use of the legal system based on how you or I might use it -- their purpose is to crush their opposition by whatever means necessary. They have to handle things that way, because Hubbard said so. Paulette Cooper, whose "crime" was writing a book critical of CoS, had 19 lawsuits filed against her at the same time by the "Church." Your plan would work if tons of people set up remailers, but barring that, rich people are actually worse targets for CoS, IMHO, as they have the resources to fight back, especially if the suit doesn't have any merits. And the support of the "big guns" is definitely dicey -- they've not provided counsel for any defendant in a CoS case, AFAIK. Groups like ACLU and EFF don't have the resources to deal with every problem they'd like to, and people shouldn't expect to be rescued by them (you said _might_, I know :) I would encourage anyone who is concerned about the remailers, that doesn't have much info on CoS' legal tactics, to spend some time on alt.religion.scientology or on Ron Newman's excellent web site http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html (he has a ton of info there and you can do Excite searches). I think that if people are not willing to stand up to CoS, the remailers are history. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause