To protect Scientology's trade secrets concerning Xenu and the space aliens ("The Works"), Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin presented pages of evidence from eminent scholars in lawsuits (1)against other individuals, not just A. Lerma's. The eminent scholars testified strongly and unmistakably that Scientology possesses secret rituals and so therefore is undoubtedly a cult. That was not exactly what Scientology was trying to get across; that was just the way it came out. After all, in a certain respect, a cult is an organization professing that spiritual enlightenment comes from keeping certain information a secret.
Scientology's secret ritual did not include posting "The Works" to the Internet, therefore the cult sued several people, including A. Lerma, to have them discontinue this practice. Notice the little contrast, that cult knowledge is "secret" but it's also "illuminating." In scientific terms, information of this sort is said to be an assertion that has been not subjected to the proof of evaluation, criticism or peer review.
In cult terms, only those with the necessary amount of loyalty, as shown by how much cult bull they are willing to bask in, are permitted to receive the cult's secret knowledge. Specifically, one illuminating example used in testimony Helena Kobrin submitted to protect "The Works" was that of the Rev. Dean Kelley. According to Kelley's testimony, Scientology and "The Works" have something in common with other cults and their secret initiation rituals. For instance, according to Rev. Kelley, newcomers to the religion of Cybele huddled in a trench, called a taurobolium. Above the trench a bull was slaughtered. As the bull's remnants were splattered into the taurobolium, the newly initiated reveled in the gore with which they were covered.(2)
If cult rituals such as these were to be disclosed prematurely, continued Rev. Kelley, "the sect would lose one of its greatest assets, not only in financial, but in psychological terms." Specifically, because people were led to believe that because they were paying an extravagant amount of money to huddle in a ditch and be splattered with bull guts, the knowledge they received from the experience must, they believed, be most valuable. "That which costs much must be worth much," Kelley wrote.
Professor Lonnie Kliever agreed that this principle applied to Scientology. "Scientology feels that even being exposed to the esoteric texts without having achieved the requisite spiritual level could interfere with one's spiritual progress," wrote the eminent professor who is "a philosopher of religion and culture with special competence in the religions of the modern era".(3)
In his court testimony, Bryan Ronald Wilson wrote as the Reader Emeritus in Sociology in the University of Oxford. From 1963 to 1993, he was a Fellow of All Souls College, and in 1993 was elected an Emeritus Fellow. His books include "Sects and Society," "Patterns of Sectarianism," "Religious Sects," "The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism" and "Magic and the millennium." In his qualifications, Wilson wrote, "I have read . . . more than twenty of the Church's official publications, most of them the writings of the founder, L. Ron Hubbard." According to Wilson, Scientology's literature "indicates the way in which man can acquire -- strictly said, re-gain -- supernatural abilities." In order for people to benefit from this literature, according to Wilson, the Scientologists "reserve" their advance materials for their own use.(4) Wilson did not mention that, even after having gotten "The Works," the promised "supernatural abilities" have always somehow just managed to elude the faithfully initiated Scientologists.
Frank K. Flinn, a self-employed writer, editor, lecturer and consultant
in the fields of theology and religion, who also served as adjunct
professor in Religious Studies at Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri, made a connection between "The Works" of Scientology and the
secret myths and rituals of "medicine people, shamans, seers and
healers." "Religious educators have long recognized that one
cannot just transmit esoteric religious doctrine willy-nilly," he
wrote.(5) Flinn spotlighted "outsiders" in general and "scoffers" in
particular for wanting to bring "trade secrets" of religion to the
light of day for discussion or criticism.
Petro Bilaniuk said he was qualified to testify in an expert capacity
about Scientology because he was a "member of thirty-six learned
societies and academies," among having achieved many other noteworthy
and remarkable academic and social accomplishments. One of the
values that Bilaniuk said religions held dear was the "keeping of
intimate relations with God from profane eyes".(6) He wrote "This
apparently is the major reason for the withholding of such scriptures."
Jeffrey K. Hadden, an honored professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, a position he had held since 1972, testified that "failure to respect and honor this nearly ageless tradition [of secrecy] is to deny the faith tradition in question (Church of Scientology) protection under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."(7) Religions, Hadden made it quite clear, are not democracies.
Gavino Idda, a resident of Los Angeles and born in Carbonia, Sardinia, is fluent in both Italian and English. Since 1978 he was employed in a paralegal capacity in Europe and the United States and was called upon to translate(8) a scholarly opinion by Professor Dario Sabbatucci. He made the translation as accurate as possible.
According to Idda's translation of Professor Dario Sabbatucci, the posting of "The Works" to the Internet "constitutes an absolute sacrilege to the faithful of this Church which, from an objective legal point of view, becomes an attack on the right to practice a religion in accordance with its rules." Sabbatucci was careful not to disclose to his readers the mysteries or even the names of some of the historical religious gods and rituals he was referring to. Instead he used code words to make his point. "Young Girl," "the Lady" and "the Trembler,"(9) according to Sabbatucci, are all words that describe mysterious knowledge that cannot be revealed for fear of attacking the respective cults' right to practice their rituals.
David Bromley, a professor of sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of Virginia, wrote that he teaches and researches sociology of religion and specializes in religious movements. Bromley sees the United States as fertile ground for richness and diversity of secret signs and rituals. Bromley gave wide reaching examples of "ancient wisdom" from "perfect masters" of "mystic reality." Finally, though, secrecy of information boils down to a matter of loyalty. Bromley wrote, "Finally, access [to the secret information] tends to be based on such principles as organizational loyalty ..." In the case of religion, Bromley wrote that loyalty is required in advance as a manifestation of legitimizing the authoritarianism of the religion: "[R]eligion organizational loyalty is inculcated before new practitioners are given access to knowledge that ostensibly altruistic actions of the profession actually serve to maintain the legitimacy of existing authority and organization."(10)
On and on the cult went about how its knowledge had to remain a secret, citing many authoritative sources to make its point.
How could the cult benefit from distributing its own knowledge if it was not kept a secret?
This amounted to an admission by the cult that if people knew
Scientology's cult secrets, they would ridicule Scientology's knowledge
as unworkable and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard as a con man.
Notes:
1) October 9, 1995 Declaration of Helena K. Kobrin in
United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. C95-20091 RMW
Religious Technology Center and Bridge Publications vs.
NetCom On-Line Communications Services, Dennis Erlich and Tom Klemesrud
2) 26 November 1994 Declaration of the Rev. Dean M. Kelley
3) 27 November 1994 Declaration of Lonnie D. Kliever
4) 26 November 1994 Declaration of Bryan Ronald Wilson
5) 27 November 1994 Declaration of Frank K. Flinn
6) 26 November 1994 Declaration of Petro B.T. Bilaniuk
7) 27 November 1994 Declaration of Jeffrey K. Hadden
8) 28 November 1994 Declaration of Gavino Idda
9) 26 November 1994 Declaration of Dario Sabbatucci
10) 28 November 1994 Declaration of Dr. David G. Bromley
Scientology completely ignored and to this day still ignores what the judge ruled. The cult still makes money from the Xenu story. It is sticking with the experts who support the authority of a UFO cults over the authority of people. Scientology's rejection of the judge's ruling is shown by Scientologist testimony submitted by Scientology before the ruling and to this day by the religious extremist Religious Freedom Watch web site, which calls people who reveal Scientology's con game "religious extremists".
What must Scientologists who have paid a lot of money to learn about Xenu and the Body Thetans think? Have they been mind-wiped of all critical thoughts for their own organization? What would they think of people who go around spilling the beans on Scientology? This was revealed in court testimony. They are absolutely certain that they have "total freedom". They believe that they are being "moral" when they say that the people who did not pay for Scientology's secrets are like the Nazis, responsible for increased crime, falling educational standards and drug abuse. The loyal Scientologists believe that they are being ethical when they call people who expose Scientology's con "spiritual prostitutes" who commit "unthinkable" acts, such as "spiritual genocide" and so forth. They believe in "total freedom" to keep, but not to tell, Scientology's secret. By definition this sort of restricted freedom is not total.
24 September 1995 Declaration of Scientology Jane A. (initials instead of name on web version) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143, Religious Technology Center vs. FactNet, Lawrence Wollersheim and Robert Penny.
J.A. was a "member of the Church of Scientology since October 1972," and an OT8, the highest Scientology rank available. She testified that her "life was a shambles." But when she found Scientology, she "realized that those dreams of happiness and success were within [her] reach at last." The result, she wrote, of receiving the secret information from Scientology was "total spiritual freedom." According to J.A., "It is of the utmost importance to keep these materials secret ..." Doing otherwise, she wrote, was "tantamount to spiritual genocide." She reemphasizes "TOTAL FREEDOM" in capital letters in reference to herself, and refers to anyone who would act differently than she as spiritual prostitutes.
24 September 1995 Declaration of Cooper A. (initials instead of name on web version). C.A., a Scientologist since 1972, wrote that he has two teenagers who "are excellent students, do not takes drugs or alcohol, and have very high moral character." He laments that "society is in a decline with falling educational standards, increased crime, drug abuse, and a general disregard for important moral values." High in C.A.'s list of moral values, is keeping Scientology's story about Xenu and the Body Thetans a secret. He says that telling Scientology's secrets "threatens the future security of all entities ..." He was an OT6.
24 September 1995 Declaration of Patricia W. (initial instead of name on web version). Patricia wrote that she has been a Scientologist since 1988, and was currently an OT4. She is "offended that the federal court in Denver is presently failing to protect our confidential upper level materials ..." She wrote that she feels like "German Jews must have felt ... when the Nazis defiled their synagogues."
24 September 1995 Declaration of Mike W. (initials instead of name on web version). Mike became a Scientologist in 1979, and is an OT7. Mike wrote that Scientology's secrets make certain things happen that were not possible before. Scientology's secrets, he wrote, "allow a person to view himself in a way that he never has before." He says that letting people who have not paid for the secrets have access to them is "unthinkable." Without his secrets, Mike would not have got a lot of "spiritual awareness."
24 September 1995 Declaration of Deanne MacD. (initials instead of name on web version). OT8 Deanne has been in Scientology since June of 1975. She "traveled the path of spiritual enlightenment" that Scientology had offered her, a result of which she has seen that when Scientology's secrets are kept secret, "they are wonderful." Not keeping the secrets "can cause spiritual damage," Deanne wrote. "I do not know how to state this more clearly than that," but she really doesn't mind it when people are "critical" of her beliefs or acted "bigoted." That is just human nature, wrote Deanne. However, letting out Scientology's secrets is "totally outrageous" to her, she wrote.
As unbending as these Scientology OTs (Operating Thetans, meaning predisposed to accepting Hubbard's secrets as total freedom) may have been, the statements of ex-OTs (meaning people who, having learned Hubbard's secrets, believe they have been conned) also have to taken into consideration. The statements of the ex-OTs, such as Arnie Lerma, were to publish Scientology's secrets to the Internet. Whereas the OTs felt that the ex-OTs were like Nazis defiling Jewish synagogues, the court held that the ex-OTs were more like people who, having been conned, were taking the steps necessary to keep others from being conned.
Coincidentally, this also means that the authority of authoritarian religious organizations who demand total loyalty from their members, even to the point of keeping absurd secrets, is secondary to the authority of the United States. Scientology was arguing the opposite, which is the same argument the National Socialists made to come to power in Germany in the 1930s. As to why Scientology demands total secrecy, like the National Socialists, Scientology runs an extensive informant system. Scientologists go to OTs, tell them their secrets at work, in the family, etc. The OTs write down these secrets and transmit them to Scientology data collection stations. Every so often some of this information comes to light. This may also figure into why it is important that Scientology's secrets not remain totally secret.
Whether professional Scientologists have improved their own lives by using Hubbard's mind-altering techniques or not, the one consistent characteristic that all of them have in common is that they are intensely, to the point of being irrationally, loyal to Hubbard and Scientology. An outward symbol of this loyalty is the insistence that their secret story of Xenu and the Body Thetans be kept a secret. This is truly a wonderful thing, as long as it causes them happiness. In allegedly being happy with The secret Works, however, the professional Scientologists are in constant terror that The Works will be published, thus exposing as a sham the claims of Scientology that it has wonderful tools for productiveness, ability and effectiveness at its disposal.
In her Declaration of 24 September 1995, for instance, Carol G. (initials instead of name on web version), Scientologist since 1983, wrote that she was "personally devastated" that people had found out about "The Works." On 25 September 1995 both Laura and Dan P. submitted declarations for Scientology to use as court evidence against people who were not as loyal to Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard as they were. Laura P. was convinced that use of The Works for any reason than giving Scientology money, was unethical. To use The Works unethically, she continued, "violates the very reason they exist." Dan P. takes on more of a doctor's approach with regard to The Works. He wrote that people should "suffer the least discomfort" possible when reading Hubbard's Works. "Improper administration of the materials," he wrote, could result in "much discomfort, including Scientologists and non-Scientologists."
The judges in these various cases that Scientology brought against critics in court had to balance the extremist view of the Scientologists, by acknowledging that not knowing about The Works, i.e., Xenu and the Body Thetans, could result not only in much discomfort, but the loss of great deals of money, time, and the right to free speech and critical discussion.
The Scientologists made their situation worse by trying to insist that it is their legal right to 1) force everyone to keep their secret for them, 2) force everyone to pay them for the rituals that are supposed to make them into intensely loyal life-long followers of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
The judges ruled that Scientology mishandled their problem. The problem the Scientologists created by trying to hide their secrets, to all appearances, was due to having made Xenu and the Body Thetans into a secret to begin with. One of the documents showing that the Scientologists' problems with Xenu were of their own making follows.
In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in Civil Action No. 95-K-2143, of Religious Technology Center vs. FactNet, Lawrence Wollersheim and Robert Penny, Judge John L. Kane, Jr., U.S. Senior District Court Judge, weighed the situation the Scientologists had created, bringing their case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On August 21, 1995 Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), a California non-profit corporation, filed a verified complaint against Lawrence Wollersheim, Robert Penny and F.A.C.T.NET, Inc. ("FACTNET") for injunctive relief and damages for copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. S 501) and trade secrets misappropriation (Colo. Rev. Stat. S 7-74-102). On October 2, 1995, RTC and an additional party, Bridge Publications, Inc., filed an amended complaint, but this event has no effect on the pending motions.
Jurisdiction is based on 28 V.S.C. SS 1331 and 1338(a) and (b) in that this is an action for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. S 501. Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 V.S.C. S 1367 is asserted over the trade secrets misappropriation claim, which RTC alleges arises out of the same transaction and occurrences.I. Background.
On August 21, 1995, Judge Babcock, ruling on ex parte motions, granted a temporary restraining order against Defendants. His order restrained Defendants from the unauthorized copying, use or reproduction of the works identified in Exhibit "A" to the complaint or any other part of the works that are part of the Advanced Technology, in particular the copying into "any computer data base, information service, storage facility, archives, or other computerized network or facility." The order further restrained the destruction or concealing by Defendants of such Works in their possession. It also required RTC to file a bond in the amount of $10,000 with the court forthwith. Judge Babcock set a hearing for a preliminary injunction before me due to his being unavailable on that date.
Judge Babcock ordered Defendants to deliver the infringing articles within their possession and control into the custody of RTC's counsel. In this regard, he issued a writ of seizure and ordered a portion of the court file sealed until execution of the writ of seizure.
On August 22, 1995, extensive materials, including computer equipment, computer software and voluminous documents were seized from Defendants premises pursuant to the writ. They were placed in the custody of RTC's counsel who proceeded to search for allegedly infringing materials.
The preliminary injunction hearing took place before me on September 8, 11, and 12, 1995. At the termination thereof, I issued an oral ruling. I denied RTC's request for a preliminary injunction and ordered RTC to return and restore to the Defendants all seized materials. I ordered Defendants to maintain the status quo as to the possession of all copyrighted materials at issue in the case and restricted each of Defendants to making only fair use of the materials. I reserved my right to clarify my oral order with a written opinion. I denied RTC's request for a stay pending its appeal of the order.
On September 13, 1995, RTC filed an emergency motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a stay pending appeal of the order denying preliminary injunction and ordering return of seized materials. On that day, the Tenth Circuit temporarily stayed the September 12 , 1993 order and directed Defendants to respond to the emergency motion by noon on Friday September 15, 1995.
On September 15, 1995, I clarified my oral order with a written memorandum opinion and order. I memorialized my oral orders denying RTC's motion for preliminary injunction;
requiring RTC to return and restore to Defendants immediately and at RTC's expanse all seized materials in the condition they were when taken and to the precise places from which they were taken; ordering Defendants to maintain the status g= as to their possession of all copyrighted materials at issue in this case and restricting them to making only fair use thereof; and prohibiting Defendants from making any additional copies of the materials or transferring them in any manner or publicizing them other than inthe context of fair use. (Mem. Op. & Order at 18.)on September 15 and September 18, 1995, RTC filed supplemental memoranda in support of its motion for stay of the order pending appeal. On September 18, 1995, the Tenth Circuit granted RTC's motion to place Exhibit 8 of Defendants' appendix under seal but dissolved the temporary stay entered on September 13, 1995 and denied RTC's motion for stay pending appeal.
RTC filed an application for a stay of my order before the United States Supreme Court, Justice Breyer, Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 20, 1995, Justice Breyer denied the request for a stay. On September 21, 1995, RTC renewed its application to the Supreme Court and requested it be addressed to Justice Soutar. (To my knowledge no action on this application has occurred.)
On September 22, 1995, RTC's counsel agreed the seized materials would be returned on September 25, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. Defendants demanded that all copies made of seized materials be returned as well. At that scheduled date and time, RTC's counsel, two RTC representatives and two of its computer experts appeared at the offices of Defendants' counsel.
RTC maintains it tendered to Defendants' counsel the remaining(1) computerized equipment and items in its possession with the exception of:
a. One floppy disk which contained Advanced Technology
--
1 On September 1 and September 5, 1995, RTC tendered certain disks, files, hard copy documents and computer equipment to defendants' counsel.
--("AT") materials. RTC asserts the disk has been copied and a disk with the AT document removed has been given to Defendants.
b. Two computer tapes which contained AT materials. RTC asserts exact duplicate tapes have been given to Defendants with only the AT materials deleted.
c. One computer CD on which AT materials were found. RTC asserts the CD has not been copied as a duplicate CD cannot be made.
d. The original hard drives of two computers which contained AT materials. RTC asserts an identical hard drive has been secured for Wollersheim's hard drive, and an equivalent for Penny's. It maintains the entirety of the original two hard drives has been copied into the duplicate hard drives which have been installed in their computers and returned to them with only the AT materials deleted.
On September 25, 1995, RTC filed Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Concerning Full Compliance with the Court's Order of September is, 1999, Directing Return of Seized materials and for an Order on New Issue Regarding Relief from Violation of First Amendment Ecclesiastical Rights. On September 16, 1995, RTC filed a Motion for Leave to Deposit Disputed Computer media with Court under Seal. On that day, Defendants' filed Defendants' Application for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt as to Plaintiff's Willful Refusal to Comply with this Court's September 15, 1995 Order, and for Seizure of Defendants' Computer Hard Drives.
On September 27, 1995, I ordered RTC to appear on October 2, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why it has not complied with my order of September 15, 1995 and why it should not be adjudged in contempt for failure to comply with the order. On October 2, 1995, RTC filed Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Application for an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt. That day an evidentiary hearing took place on the contempt issue and I heard oral argument on the pending motions.
II. Discussion.
RTC requests me to order that it has complied with the order of September 15, 1995 (incorporating my oral ruling of September 12, 1995) and to modify the order concerning those items which it has not returned. RTC also requests leave to deposit with the court under seal the "computer media" it has retained in its possession contrary to the order. Defendants on the other hand request me to find RTC in contempt for its willful refusal to comply with the order and to order the seizure of Defendants' computer hard drives.
RTC requests me to adjudge it in compliance with my order and to modify the order based on First Amendment issues which it submits were not raised or addressed at the preliminary injunction hearing.
RTC argues it is unable to comply with my order insofar as it requires RTC to return and restore to Defendants copies of AT materials which were seized because to do so would cause RTC's president to violate a fundamental religious belief of the Church of Scientology. RTC asserts a central tenet of the Scientology religion forbids all scientologists from furnishing any copies of the AT materials to anyone who has not fulfilled the required spiritual and ethical prerequisites and any apostates of the religion. RTC maintains requiring compliance with the September 15, 1995 order would interfere with the Scientologists' right to exercise their religion freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.(2)
My order of September 15 (incorporating my oral ruling of September 12, 1995) stated pertinently: "Plaintiff is to return and restore to Defendants immediately and at Plaintiff's expense all seized materials in the condition they were when taken and to the precise places from which they were, taken." (Man Op. & Order September 15, 1995.)
My order was inaccurate because it was phrased as an order to RTC to return the seized materials This court has never authorized the possession by RTC of the materials.
Judge Babcock's August 21, 1995 order of seizure stated in pertinent part:
IT 15 ORDERED THAT:
1. The Clerk of the Court issue a Writ directed to the United States Matrshal or other on-duty or off-duty federal, state municipal law enforcement officer. (hereinafter referred to collectively as a (sic) "law enforcement officers") assisted by counsel and, representatives of the plaintiff, forthwith to seize and deliver to the custody of counsel for the plaintiff the
---
1. The First Amendment pertinently provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .• U.S. Const. amend I.
---articles identified in Paragraph 3 below infringing the copyrights in the literary works of L. Ron Hubbard or containing trade secret materials belonging to RTC.
* * * *
3. The Writ so issued shall further direct that the law enforcement officer(s) shall hold the articles so seized in a safe place and forthwith deliver all such articles so seized in a safe place and forthwith deliver such articles to the custody of counsel for plaintiff.(Order to Clerk to Issue Writ for Seizure of Articles Infringing Statutory Copyright and Containing Misappropriated Trade Secrets and order for Impoundment At 1-3) (emphasis added).
My order of return, although legalistically addressed to RTC, was intended to be directed to those persons to whom Judge Babcock had ordered the law enforcement officers to deliver the seized articles. Judge Babcock's order required the law enforcement officers to deliver the articles to counsel for RTC, rather than RTC itself. Compliance with my order of return created no obligation on the part of RTC to return materials. Rather, it required counsel for RTC, whom this court had authorized to take possession of the seized articles from the law enforcement officers, to do so. Accordingly, my order cannot be perceived as requiring RTC or any member of the Church of Scientology to violate any religious belief nor constitute a threat to a central tenet of the religion. For this reason, my order did not involve any First Amendment issue concerning the free exercise of religion nor can RTC be hold in contempt for violating that order.
I expressly disapprove at the conduct of both counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants in not complying with my September 15, 1995 order. That order required counsel for RTC to return and restore to Defendants immediately and at RTC's expense all seized materials in the condition they were when taken and to the precise places from which they were taken. Contrary to that order, and without requesting a modification thereof, Defendants' counsel suggested and Plaintiff's counsel agreed that the surrender be made at the offices of counsel for Defendants. (Mot. Leave. Deposit Computer Media under Seal at 4) (Defs.' App. Issuance order Show Cause, Ex. I.) Such conduct amounts to a disregard of court authority.
At the evidentiary hearing on the issue of contempt, Wollersheim testified he has been unable to operate his computer with the replacement hard drive which RTC installed in place of his own. He also stated not all items seized were returned to him in the condition in which they were seized. This testimony was contradicted by that of RTC's witnesses including its computer experts who maintain the equipment is fully operational.
[...]
I order that all seized materials, including any computer equipment or media of any nature, and any copies which have been made. thereof, which are currently in the possession of either counsel for RTC or counsel for Defendants be immediately placed in the custody of this court. They shall remain in the custody of this court until further order.
Those items which were seized but are currently in the custody of Defendants themselves, rather than their counsel, need not be placed in the custody of the court but may be retained by Defendants subject to the provisions of my September 15, 1995 order. That order required Defendants to maintain the status g= as to their possession of all copyrighted materials at issue in this case and restricted them to making only fair use thereof. It prohibited Defendants from making any additional copies of the materials or transferring them in any manner or publicizing them other than in the context of fair use.
[...]
I defer any order on issues of contempt or sanctions until I have considered the report of the special master.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 1995 at Denver, Colorado.