Article 169142 of alt.religion.scientology:
Path: news.primenet.com!lippard
From: lippard@primenet.com (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Letter to Ginny Leason, March 10, 1996
Date: 22 Apr 1996 20:41:02 -0700
Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet
Lines: 110
Sender: root@primenet.com
Message-ID: <4lhjge$7g2@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
X-Posted-By: lippard@usr5.primenet.com
Xref: news.primenet.com alt.religion.scientology:169142

On March 9, 1996, I participated in my fourth picket at the Mesa, Arizona
Org, protesting Scientology harassment of Internet users.  Earlier in
the week, I received a telephone call from Ginny Leason of the Mesa Org,
asking if she could meet with me beforehand.  Steve Marinick and I met
with her the day of the picket, and she asked what could be done locally
to make us stop picketing.  At that meeting, Steve and I observed that
she did not seem to be well informed about what has been going on, and
I told her that I would send her some materials that would help.  We
also emphasized that the local Church should demonstrate that it is
willing to listen and respond to complaints, and should become active
on the net.

I followed up with the following letter.  Ginny Leason has not responded.
Scientologist John Bryant, who I met at a couple of our pickets, was
briefly active on the net (including a.r.s.) and exchanged some email
with me, but has become silent.  When I requested that he ask Leason to
please respond to my letter, he did not answer.

It seems appropriate, then, to post my letter to the net.  Why won't
Ginny Leason respond?


                         Jim Lippard
                         c/o Primenet
                    1224 E. Washington St.
                       Phoenix, AZ 85034
                      lippard@primenet.com

                                                    10 March 1996

Ginny Leason
Church of Scientology
2111 W. University
Mesa, AZ 85201

Dear Ginny:

Thanks for the lunch and the Pepsi.

Enclosed are copies of the _Skeptic_ and _Wired_ magazine articles
on Scientology and the Internet.  I have blacked out portions which
quote from or describe the contents of OT materials.

I have a few questions for you.

1.  The handout which was given out at one of the previous protests, as
well as to picketers at this most recent protest, headlined "These
'Demonstrators' Support Copyright Criminals" contains a number of
falsehoods which are also probably legally actionable.  Why did you
distribute this?  Specifically, the first sentence claims that "The
'demonstrators' outside this Church support crime on the Internet."
This is a lie.  I do not support crime on the Internet and I do not
know of any other picketer who does.  Further, there are no
"criminals" involved in any of the recent lawsuits.  Copyright
infringement is a tort--a civil, not criminal offense.  That's another
lie.  The flyer also misrepresents the actions of Dennis Erlich, who
stated that he would be happy to stop posting materials allegedly
copyrighted by the Church if the Church would simply provide him with 
evidence that he was, in fact, infringing their copyrights.  The Church
never produced this evidence before raiding his home.  In RTC v. Netcom,
the Church voluntarily dropped its claim of "trade secret" for the OT3
materials when Robert Vaughn Young testified that the same scenarios
described in these materials have been freely distributed for decades,
for instance, in Hubbard's screenplay "Revolt in the Stars" (which John
Travolta is trying to get made into a major motion picture).  In RTC v.
Lerma, Judge Brinkema essentially threw out all the trade secret claims.
In the Netherlands, the Church dropped its pending lawsuits when it was
unable to provide evidence required by Dutch law to show that it had
valid copyrights on the OT material.  The lawsuits were reinstated, but
only regarding OT2 and OT3, when it was able to provide the required
evidence.

2.  On the harassment timeline, in the undated incidents, it is
noted that "A Scientologist attempts to prevent Jeff Jacobsen's
employer from being able to attend a seminar where the company
promotes itself."  I have learned that you were the Scientologist in
question.  Why did you do this?

3.  I would like to know whether you condemn the use of private
investigators to intimidate Church critics.

4.  I would like to know if you are informed about and condemn the
actions taken by the Church of Scientology against author Paulette
Cooper, which included attempting to frame her for bomb threats
which were fabricated by the Church itself.

5.  I would like to know if you condemn the infiltration of government
offices and theft of documents performed by the Church of Scientology
in Washington, D.C. and in Toronto, which led to multiple felony
convictions for Church members.  The Church claims that members of the
GO have been purged from the Church, yet there are still members who
were directly involved in the illegal activities who are still in
the Church (including convicted felon Mo Budlong and unindicted
co-conspirator Kendrick Moxon).  Another former GO member who is
still a high-ranking Church member is Kurt Weiland.  Why haven't
these people been kicked out?

That's enough for now.  I hope that you are willing to engage in
dialogue on these subjects.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jim Lippard

--
Jim Lippard    lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04


Article 170153 of alt.religion.scientology:
Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: tashback@aol.com (Tashback)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Letter to Ginny Leason, March 10, 1996
Date: 26 Apr 1996 02:04:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 232
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4lpp0l$hd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4lk68m$82q@news.aimnet.com>
Reply-To: tashback@aol.com (Tashback)
Xref: news.primenet.com alt.religion.scientology:170153

In the Arizona Republic, April 6, in the letters to the editor section,
there appeared a letter from Ms. Leason protesting a teeny-tiny mention of
Scn critics in an earlier Republic story announcing the new Scn web sites.
Her letter begins: "The added comments in your March 25 story 'Scientology
Sites,' pertaining to critics of the Church of Scientology's new World
Wide Web site, were unbelievable. A handful of people on news groups are
critics, but even if part of the bad things said about Scientology were
true, the church would not exist, let alone be as popular as it is today
..." Nine more paragraphs of boilerplate about how great the church is,
with a little local appeal: "The start of Scientology began right here in
Phoenix ..." (Great. First the Cardinals, now this news. So much for
Phoenix's civic pride.)

When I saw the letter, I zipped over to the library to check out the
article she mentioned, which I'd somehow missed. It was _nothing_! Just a
line in the Republic's "Computing" section announcing that CoS had new web
sites, with an additional prompt to visit -- something like, "If you've
been curious about what the critics are complaining about, here it is" or
something equally innocuous. Certainly nothing to inspire the
mock-indignant term "unbelievable."

Ms. Leason ends her letter by protesting a bit too much: "The criticism
that is being received against the church is nothing but noise, we have a
community to assist which is more than the critics do any day of the week.
The next time a newspaper writer wants to check on what the critics are
saying he needs to look out his window first and find out who is helping
the community." --followed by, of course, a call to action, instructing
readers to visit the sites.

Ms. Leason certainly drew a lot of attention to the critics with her
letter -- much more than the original blurb did. And so did the copyeditor
who headlined her letter "Scientology's Web pages popular, despite
critics."

I understand Ms. Leason's desire to keep local attention focused on local
issues rather than trying to tangle with the larger CoS issues Jim Lippard
brings up. Unfortunately for her, however, the boilerplate material CoS
International (or whatever) provides her with doesn't serve that purpose.
If one is going to bring up the fact that one has critics, it's usually a
good idea to refute the critics' claims at the same time. Dismissing them
as "nothing but noise," with no further comment, evokes an image of a PR
rep with her fingers in her ears, singing "La la la" really loudly.

(I don't know how to make the AOL newsgroup function do fancy reposts of
previous thread stuff, so I'll just copy and paste the post to which I'm
responding here:)

>>>Subject: Re: Letter to Ginny Leason, March 10, 1996
From: steve@swhitlat.com (steve)
Date: 24 Apr 1996 03:13:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4lk68m$82q@news.aimnet.com>

In article <4lhjge$7g2@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, lippard@primenet.com
(James J. Lippard) writes:

|> On March 9, 1996, I participated in my fourth picket at the Mesa,
Arizona
|> Org, protesting Scientology harassment of Internet users.  Earlier in
|> the week, I received a telephone call from Ginny Leason of the Mesa
Org,
|> asking if she could meet with me beforehand.  Steve Marinick and I met
|> with her the day of the picket, and she asked what could be done
locally
|> to make us stop picketing.  

The last line, ". . . and she asked what could be done locally to make 
us stop picketing" describes the whole of what she wanted.  

People who are as vociferously critical of scientology as you have 
been are SPs.  They can be "lied to, tricked, . . ." blah blah.  You 
know the policy, ". . . utterly ruined."

The ranks of persons critical of the criminal cult of scientology are 
filled with high-quality, well-educated, law-abiding people.

The criminal cult of scientology is filled with a different type.
 

|>At that meeting, Steve and I observed that
|> she did not seem to be well informed about what has been going on, 

Of course not, she might have a shred of integrity still left in her, 
which could cause trouble with the cult's coffers.

|>and
|> I told her that I would send her some materials that would help.  We
|> also emphasized that the local Church should demonstrate that it is
|> willing to listen and respond to complaints, and should become active
|> on the net.


Never in a million years.  They would all be declared SPs.


|> 
|> I followed up with the following letter.  Ginny Leason has not
responded.

In her mind, you do not deserve a response.  All she did was 
try to trick you into not picketing.  It didn't work, she failed,
you picketed.  Resultingly, she was probably assigned a lower 
condition , humiliated, and forced to beg forgiveness.   (That 
is the essence of "working out of a lower condition.")  

You were a bad experience for her, sort of like an engram. :)
She would not like to do that again.

|> Scientologist John Bryant, who I met at a couple of our pickets, was
|> briefly active on the net (including a.r.s.) and exchanged some email
|> with me, but has become silent.  When I requested that he ask Leason to
|> please respond to my letter, he did not answer.


They are not allowed to communicate with you excpet in 
a highly supervised mode, whereby the communication 
is monitored and manipulated.  That is most likely.  That 
is how the criminal cult of scientology works.  Everyone 
and evreything must be controlled, lest the truth be known.


|> 
|> It seems appropriate, then, to post my letter to the net.  Why won't
|> Ginny Leason respond?


If you don't believe me, ask Koos. 

|> 
|> 
|>                          Jim Lippard
|>                          c/o Primenet
|>                     1224 E. Washington St.
|>                        Phoenix, AZ 85034
|>                       lippard@primenet.com
|> 
|>                                                     10 March 1996
|> 
|> Ginny Leason
|> Church of Scientology
|> 2111 W. University
|> Mesa, AZ 85201
|> 
|> Dear Ginny:
|> 
|> Thanks for the lunch and the Pepsi.
|> 
|> Enclosed are copies of the _Skeptic_ and _Wired_ magazine articles
|> on Scientology and the Internet.  I have blacked out portions which
|> quote from or describe the contents of OT materials.


You are the purveyor of contamination, in OSAs eyes.


|> 
|> I have a few questions for you.
|> 
|> 1.  The handout which was given out at one of the previous protests, as
|> well as to picketers at this most recent protest, headlined "These
|> 'Demonstrators' Support Copyright Criminals" contains a number of
|> falsehoods which are also probably legally actionable.  Why did you
|> distribute this?  


That would be truly a scary thing to both jenny and OSA, 
"legally actionable."

The reason the scientologists at the Mesa org will not 
communicate with you is because they feel that 
they cannot win with you.  That's why.  You 
didn't do what they wanted you to do and they don't 
think you will.  


|>Specifically, the first sentence claims that "The
|> 'demonstrators' outside this Church support crime on the Internet."
|> This is a lie.  I do not support crime on the Internet and I do not
|> know of any other picketer who does.  Further, there are no
|> "criminals" involved in any of the recent lawsuits.  Copyright
|> infringement is a tort--a civil, not criminal offense.  That's another
|> lie.  The flyer also misrepresents the actions of Dennis Erlich, who
|> stated that he would be happy to stop posting materials allegedly
|> copyrighted by the Church if the Church would simply provide him with 
|> evidence that he was, in fact, infringing their copyrights.  The Church
|> never produced this evidence before raiding his home.  In RTC v.
Netcom,
|> the Church voluntarily dropped its claim of "trade secret" for the OT3
|> materials when Robert Vaughn Young testified that the same scenarios
|> described in these materials have been freely distributed for decades,
|> for instance, in Hubbard's screenplay "Revolt in the Stars" (which John
|> Travolta is trying to get made into a major motion picture).  In RTC v.
|> Lerma, Judge Brinkema essentially threw out all the trade secret
claims.
|> In the Netherlands, the Church dropped its pending lawsuits when it was
|> unable to provide evidence required by Dutch law to show that it had
|> valid copyrights on the OT material.  The lawsuits were reinstated, but
|> only regarding OT2 and OT3, when it was able to provide the required
|> evidence.
|> 
|> 2.  On the harassment timeline, in the undated incidents, it is
|> noted that "A Scientologist attempts to prevent Jeff Jacobsen's
|> employer from being able to attend a seminar where the company
|> promotes itself."  I have learned that you were the Scientologist in
|> question.  Why did you do this?
|> 
|> 3.  I would like to know whether you condemn the use of private
|> investigators to intimidate Church critics.
|> 
|> 4.  I would like to know if you are informed about and condemn the
|> actions taken by the Church of Scientology against author Paulette
|> Cooper, which included attempting to frame her for bomb threats
|> which were fabricated by the Church itself.
|> 
|> 5.  I would like to know if you condemn the infiltration of government
|> offices and theft of documents performed by the Church of Scientology
|> in Washington, D.C. and in Toronto, which led to multiple felony
|> convictions for Church members.  The Church claims that members of the
|> GO have been purged from the Church, yet there are still members who
|> were directly involved in the illegal activities who are still in
|> the Church (including convicted felon Mo Budlong and unindicted
|> co-conspirator Kendrick Moxon).  Another former GO member who is
|> still a high-ranking Church member is Kurt Weiland.  Why haven't
|> these people been kicked out?
|> 
|> That's enough for now.  I hope that you are willing to engage in
|> dialogue on these subjects.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> 
|> /s/
|> 
|> Jim Lippard<<<


Article 170220 of alt.religion.scientology:
Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!sun4nl!xs4all!mail
From: papertiger@alpha.c2.org (Paper Tiger)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Letter to Ginny Leason, March 10, 1996
Date: 26 Apr 1996 19:44:26 +0200
Organization: Little Furry Daughters of Xenu
Lines: 41
Sender: daemon@utopia.hacktic.nl
Message-ID: <199604261730.KAA12885@infinity.c2.org>
References: <4lk68m$82q@news.aimnet.com> <4lpp0l$hd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: utopia.hacktic.nl
X-Plug: Community ConneXion offers privacy on the internet.  http://www.c2.org/
X-To: mail2news@utopia.hacktic.nl
X-Mail2News-Complaints-To: postmaster@utopia.hacktic.nl
Xref: news.primenet.com alt.religion.scientology:170220

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In Message-ID: <4lpp0l$hd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
tashback@aol.com (Tashback) wrote:
>Her letter begins: "The added comments in your March 25 story 'Scientology
>Sites,' pertaining to critics of the Church of Scientology's new World
>Wide Web site, were unbelievable. A handful of people on news groups are
>critics, but even if part of the bad things said about Scientology were
>true, the church would not exist, let alone be as popular as it is today
>..."

  Thought I'd read that somewhere before, so I looked it up:

On 13 Oct 1995 20:14:42 -0700
In Message-ID: <45n9v2$dsq@crl6.crl.com>,
milne@crl.com (Andrew Milne) wrote:
[snip]
|     Now, if it were really true that allegedly horrendous things were
|happening inside the Church of Scientology, you can be absolutely sure
|of one thing: the Church would not exist.  No organization responsible
|for one tenth of one percent of the acts that have been alleged against
|it on this newsgroup would have survived a year, let alone 40 years AND
|expanded into more than 120 countries.

  Boilerplate?  Hmm.

   ** Paper Tiger (SP3, LFDoX)

ALL messages will be PGP signed.  Public key (id 227FD309) on keyservers.
Public Key Fingerprint: E0 84 ED E2 01 FD D0 BE 5E B1 93 0B D5 F1 CA 08
PGP encrypted mail preferred.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMYD8/oCmc8kif9MJAQHo1AP/UhOydRtIZPqG+AqgSAFrGxqjvMQF/+wG
Q5Q49/8EGoEbexgUHXlsbh6XbISMmF/EshLFG2dBMIKROVWO9j6Mwbfbgn05ZSbP
QIUKoGAxlu3idqlMzBF0S8MVuLybFTPkN2a7IoMXz52TaAux6iPtZJF7FPF9X7TU
rdZZeWa1t34=
=Un3v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----