The Alien Krlll
View profile
More options Apr 10, 3:45 pm
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: The Alien Krlll
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:45:39 -0500
Local: Sat, Apr 10 2010 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: a start onRev. Dennis L. Erlich wiki page
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Dennis L Erlich wrote, On 4/10/2010 12:35 PM:
> "Android Cat" wrote:
>
> klemmy
>>> Of course you know Wikipedia could not have come into existence either
>>> had it not been for the ISPs in RTC V. Netcom.
>
> So effing what? There would have been no RTC v Netcom if I hadn't
> posted as I had to ars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Erlich I
> started the battle on the internet. And I will be here to finish it.
What you did was to deliberately, and criminally, infringe copyrights
and trade secrets -- while all along telling your ISP that what you were
doing was not infringement, but was fair use.
The role of the quality control person in a brainwashing factory -- the
role they you have described yourself doing as the Chief Cramming
Officer -- knoww everything that L. Ron Hubbard wrote, knows where to
find it in the files, and to be able to scream at those who are getting
crammed with it. It's very disingenuous for you to say -- as you said
in the BBC video -- that you did not know what claim the Church of
Scientology might have on the infringing material you were illicitly
posting to the Internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6KM27TUsvM
It's amazing that only just now your words captured on the Internet
along with your pictures and video is starting to catch up on you and
prove to the world what a lying charlatan you are.
This whole thread started with you suggesting that Tom Klemesrud and
Netcom Online Communication Services, where two cowards, too afraid to
fight the Scientology cult as the brave Rev. Dennis Erlich did. That is
untrue. Not only did these ISPs fight, they won! They set up a new
protocol and precedent in law that would have global ramifications.
Your only input into this was you provided the criminal impetus to get
the ball rolling. It goes beyond the pale how you can pat yourself on
the back for criminal actions you took, lied about, that had deleterious
collateral effects on innocent third parties. It's amazing too that you
have a whole cheering section from Canada to the United States that
goads you on to bragging about your deliberate destruction of other
people's property, utilizing other people's property to do it.
>
> Klems would have continued to be a net-nobody if I had simply chosen
> to get a Netcom account to post to ars,
I'm sure that being a net-nobody would be a far superior fate than what
you unleashed upon your ISPs -- that were defending your freedom of
speech. A successful career in broadcasting, television, film and
newspaper publishing would have to suffice in lieu of being a net-nobody.
> instead of using his little bulletin board.
The little BBS that you refer to was the sole source of over 4000 people
in Los Angeles for getting their e-mail.
> He hid behind his insurance company and abandoned the
> fight before risking anything.
What do you think Rev., insurance was made for? And while we're on the
topic, why were you so stupid that you didn't have an apartment renters
liability policy? Or, did you have such a policy? You have to be one
of the stupidest combatants that the Church of Scientology has ever
seen. It is becoming more apparent that ever you deliberately provoked
Scientology into raiding you -- as they had done to John Bostrom just
four years before -- knowing full well, as the "tar baby" you have
nicknamed yourself -- that they would come with overwhelming force.
The question has to be asked: Rev. Erlich, did you pull off this stunt
simply as a scam to gain money from Scientology?
A second question has to be asked: was this all a covert operation for
Scientology to sue themselves, with the aim of creating better
intellectual property law for themselves, and Hollywood movie and record
producers? If this were the case, a simple renters liability insurance
policy would not be wanted by the perpetrators of the fraud on the court.
How do you know Doug Jacobsen and David Butterworth?
It is simply inconceivable of any half intelligent person to go to war
with the Church of Scientology without having a simple liability
insurance policy. People simply aren't that stupid. I believe you had
a policy and did not tell Morrison Foerster about it. If you're
infringing activity started when you were living with Ed and Priscilla
Coates, then their homeowners policy would have covered your infringing
activity. You've got some explaining to do Rev. in this regard.
> And instead paid the cult a
> settlement.
As you should remember Amy Harmon of the Los Angeles Times said the
exact same thing on August 23, 1996 in the newspaper. The next day on
August 24, 1996 the Los Angeles Times printed a retraction on the front
page correcting what she said. The insurance company threatened
withdrawal of coverage if they could not simply pay Scientology the
token amount of $50,000 to settle the whole thing.
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/960822_klemesrud_sett...
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom.klemes...@support.com
Subject: Klemesrud Press Release
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 11:56:16 -0700
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
8/22/96 -- The holders of copyrights to material authored by L. Ron
Hubbard, founder of the controversial Church of Scientology, have agreed
to dismiss the operator of a Los Angeles-based computer bulletin board
service as a defendant from a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement
over the internet.
Early last year, Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Bridge
Publications sued Tom Klemesrud, the operator of the service, along with
his subscriber, Dennis Erlich, and Netcom On-Line Communication
Services, Klemesrud's internet service provider. Netcom settled out
earlier this month. The lawsuit, which continues to proceed against
Erlich, an ex-Scientologist, alleges that Erlich infringed copyrights by
posting material written by Hubbard to a Usenet newsgroup known as
"alt.religion.scientology." The internet newsgroup has become widely
known for its impassioned postings by both proponents and critics of
Scientology.
In a novel claim that would have tested the limits of liability in
cyberspace, the plaintiffs had contended that Klemesrud and Netcom
should be held legally responsible for the alleged acts of Erlich
because he used their computer services to make his postings to the
internet.
Federal District Judge Ronald M. Whyte ruled in November 1995
that Klemesrud could not be found liable for direct infringement,
and could only be found liable for contributory copyright infringe-
ment if there was knowledge of a BBS user's infringement.
"This is the most important thing we have achieved in this
litigation. It has positive ramifications for all of the Internet,"
Klemesrud said.
The plaintiffs claimed significant economic damage resulting from
the postings. They alleged that those who might otherwise have
purchased Scientology materials and services were able to obtain them
for free once Erlich posted them to the internet.
The claims against Klemesrud were settled for $50,000, an amount
that is to be paid by Klemesrud's insurance carrier. Important to
Klemesrud, himself a critic of the Church of Scientology, is the fact
that the terms of the settlement include no admission of liability on
his part.
"Settling this case was a business decision by my insurance
company," Klemesrud said. "I would have liked to stay in there and
participate in total exoneration, but I understand it would have been a
lot more expensive to take this case all the way through trial rather
than to pay this token amount now, and be happy with the positive
results we've achieved."
##
> Some "big win" for the internet.
I believe this is the only sentence in your message that is not a lie.
To quote Paul Haggis to Tommy Davis, "To see you lie so easily, I am
afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?"
>
> He even paid off Ms Bloodybutt, who, after he was arrested for
> assault, sued him in small claims court.
There you go again. Someday you're going to have a chance to prove
these things in court. The fact is the insurance company forced the
payment. It was one of the dumbest legal moves that Bloody Butt could
make, but she had to make it because it was the only move she had
because the facts were not on her side. By paying $5000 in small claims
court, the insurance company saved the cost of full litigation in
Superior Court. Accepting a payoff in small claims, you are denied
litigating the matter any further.
But I'm sure that was the intent of her Scientology handlers. Gene
Ingram was even in small claims court that day with her. They wanted to
provide people like you Rev. Dennis Erlich with enough information for
you to plausibly claim that an assault happened, and Bloody Butt won in
court.
You neglect to mention that this woman would later try to frame him
again by claiming he was stalking her at a Burbank bar. She was proved
to be a liar in Los Angeles Superior Court because "Klemmy" was 1500
miles away attending his dad's funeral. His dad, unlike Tom, had the
nickname of "Klemmy."
You are one crass individual for a man of God, granted church status
from the Internal Revenue Service.
> He's a booze-guzzling, surrender-monkey.
And you know this how?
>>> Is that lost on you Ron?
>
> As if Klemmy were the cause of anything.
He seems to be the cause of your continual unraveling. every day yo are
more "as-ised."
>> Completely lost past the US border.
>
> And toadly irrelevant on this side of it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costar_v._Loopnet
Holdings of Appellate Court:
The appellate court supported the Netcom decision as "a particularly
rational interpretation of § 106 [of the Copyright Act]." The court
reasoned that similar to a copying machine, an ISP who owned an
electronic facility that responded automatically to users' input was not
a direct infringer. The court also reasoned that temporary electronic
copies made during the transmission were not "fixed" because such copies
were used to automatically transmit users' material and they were not
"of more than transitory duration."
In response to CoStar’s argument that the DMCA made the Netcom case
irrelevant, the court held that the DMCA was not exclusive and that the
Netcom case was still a valid precedent. The court first reasoned that
the DMCA specifically provided that despite a failure to meet the
safe-harbor conditions of § 512, an ISP was still entitled to all other
arguments under the law. Second, the court reasoned that when Congress
codified a common law principle, the common law remained good law.
Third, the court reasoned that legislative history suggested that
Congress intended the DMCA's safe harbor for ISPs to be a floor, not a
ceiling, of protection.
>
> D
Maybe someday "Klemmy" will give you a chance to prove all this in a
defamation action in court, you disgusting, profane little ant.
--
"You did all in your power to denigrate LRH tech. You then settled out
for big bucks. You are for sale – and were bought – and do not warrant
the time of day of those who frequent this board" -- Marty Rathbun to
Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (10/26/09). "Settlement money isn't taxed. Money
won in a judgment is." -- Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (Mar 19, 2010)