Dear Mr. Klemesrud, Thank you for reaching out. The Iowa Law Review appreciates all feedback, especially from alumni. Based on your Facebook post, I am unable to understand the contents of your complaint. If you have specific concerns, or legal errors to bring to our attention, please feel free to contact me at hannah-shirey@uiowa.edu. Best, Hannah Shirey Editor in Chief, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 103 Tom Klemesrud First, Religious Technology Center, RTC, was controlled by another corporate entity called the Church of Spiritual Technology. Head of this entity was renowned University of Iowa professor, Meade Emery. It was CST that controlled all the assets of the church of Scientology set up by a University of Iowa law school professor, Meade Emery – who was in control of the whole organization, de facto, at the time of the lawsuit. Mr. Emery may have lectured on his ideas of a tax-exempt, feigned religion being protected by only lawyers at the top of a corporate pyramid scheme. That idea certainly is sinister for a place like Iowa. The Scientology cult, it was Meade Emery along with two other attorneys and a Scientology accountant. The religious structure in the state of California is that a religious organization cannot be overthrown by its members when the religious organization members are only three lawyers– Nonmembers – isolated, on top of a corporate pyramid, that owns all the assets. That is what your renowned law school professor set up to protect it from the government, and its victimized members of the religion … like your unrecognized affiant. In fact, around 1997 I did contact the renowned professor Emery at his law office in Seattle Washington. He knew my name, I guess from the Netcom lawsuit or maybe the fact that I was a known IRS Criminal Investigation Division Confidential Informant. Professor Emery was attentive to the questions I had for him– particularly his control of the church of Scientology – but then, he said it would take him two weeks to refresh his memory, and that his fee is $600 per hour. "Could you afford it" he asked? As far as Ms. Asp's treatise on RTC versus Netcom online services, Dennis Erlich, and Tom Klemesrud, doing business as Clearwood data services, I would suggest that the antagonist to Scientology unclean-hands was your Iowa Presidents Club member Tom Klemesrud, me. Netcom didn't have anything to do with it other than accept my advice. Dennis Erlich was waiting in the wings to see if I would strip him of his right of free speech using my Internet service provider BBS. I stood firm against Professor Emery's cult. Since, many people have applauded the action that led to Internet service providers given safe harbor from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, codified into law, and taken from the principles in RTC versus Netcom – My stance. I at least would like to appear as a footnote in the history that my bravery standing up to this billion-dollar evil entity; with its principles on intellectual property, remarkably similar to the president Bill Clinton's National Information Infrastructure, (NII), and Hollywood IP interests, (Just two months too late to head off the safe harbors codification) which assumed any infringement IS direct infringement. Taking a stand against Scientology I knew that I would be attacked, that my job with ABC-TV would be my last job, forced into early retirement at age 49 – that I would be investigated and smeared by private investigators and driving into bankruptcy, made true just three weeks ago. In fact, private investigators spanned the campus of the University of Iowa in 1995, And continued throughout 1997, because if ILR would have researched the case thoroughly, as it is meticulously laid out on the Internet, you would find that another University of Iowa graduate was involved. His name is Thomas Gerard Rummelhart, of the Iowa City/University of Iowa Rummelhart family. He was involved on the church of Scientology side, posting to the Internet material from the root directory of a supposed-secure server of the church, a document meant to frame me for a crime that was to be sprung on the federal copyright court at the last minute. This lack of computer security caused the church of Scientology to enlist the help of the Los Angeles police department, the US Treasury Department and its associated Interpol, in tracking down and finding the leaker, University of Iowa alum Thomas Rummelhart hiding behind the fictitious Internet handle of (-AB-), posting through his graduate Caltech account. The document that Rummelhart posted was designed to frame me for a crime, an actual assault on me, three weeks before I was sued in federal court. In fact, our fellow alumnus, Thomas Rummelhart, spent four months locked up in Scientology's computer center, In filthy conditions, with one bathroom, and only one shower allowed each person a week, with 100 other people; their human and civil rights violated, hidden from a media afraid to report, and a supposedly unwitting Los Angeles Police Department. http://www.lermanet.com/dangarvin/ After this Scientology placed Rummelhart in a safe house in Coralville Iowa, under the supervision of the Scientology's CIA-like investigative division, the Office of Special Affairs, (OSA), monitored by OSA's Kirsten Caetano. https://youtu.be/b6KM27TUsvM And I'm wondering, did any of those Scientology agents, lawyers or private investigators drop by the Iowa College of Law campus to heap praise on their hired lawyer, University of Iowa professor Meade Emery; maybe donate a few tax-exempt bucks, one tax-exempt organization to another? I'm just wondering if that's one of the reasons why Iowa Law College and the Iowa Law Review is so short on knowledge regarding what it was that caused Federal Law to change, for the better; in that this Facebook enterprise could not exist today without this case law. http://veritas.scientology-1972.org/secret/index.htm So Hannah Shirey, tell it truthfully: The renowned Iowa professor Meade Emory did not win his biggest case. He lost, and I won. Chalk one up for Iowa decency. Iowa Law Review Dear Mr. Klemesrud, Wow, it sounds like you truly have insight into an interesting story. Thank you for sharing it with us. The Iowa Law Review piece, however, is completely unrelated to the history you explain below. The piece was not offering a full account of the RTC case, nor was it taking a stand as to which party should prevail. The author's goal of including the case was merely to describe "who could be held liable for placing copyrighted material online without permission from the copyright owner." The piece mentioned the RTC case briefly, primarily to cite the legal liability standard that it created. It made only one mention of the parties, and did not place any importance on the fact that Scientology was involved. The coverage of the RTC case was so brief, in fact, that it was mentioned in a maximum of 7 footnotes, over 2 paragraphs. Again, while I want to thank you for bringing this very interesting history to our attention, it was in no way our author's goal to discuss that story in any depth. The RTC case was mentioned simply as support for a legal concept. In terms of the story, our piece cited the court's full decision, so interested readers will be able to read more about your story and the details/background of the RTC case if they wish. Thank you again, Mr. Klemesrud. Tom Klemesrud You bet. I am available for students whom might want to follow up on it all.