Subject: Don't Post Empty Subjects From: mayo@lightlink.com (David Mayo) Date: 1996/04/18 Message-Id: <4l6ujr$lk@light.lightlink.com> Distribution: inet Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- hkhenson@shell.portal.com (H Keith Henson) wrote: >Tom Klemesrud (tomklem@netcom.com) wrote: >: Sherilyn (Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk) wrote: >: : In article <3172c9d7.5908941@news>, Maureen Garde >: : writes > >[snip] >: : >$2.9 million in fees were awarded. The award was upheld today (4/15/96) by >: : >the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [...] >Speaking about that, my reading of the Appeals courts rules indicates >that I can appeal an injunction. Any of you net.lawyers out there >know for sure? I suspect that few regular lawyers would appeal an >injunction issued by the judge they expect to try the case, but I feel >the constitutional rights issue is important enough for me to take the >chance of making Judge Whyte mad at me by seeking a "second opinion" >with the Ninth Circuit. At least I won't have to explain to the >Ninth Circuit who Dennis Miscavige is. (grin) Keith Henson His name is David Miscavige. > In my experience being "litgated at" by Scientology, whenever a decision went against them, they filed a Motion for Re-consideration and if that didn't work, they then filed an appeal and if that didn't work an appeal en banc and if that ... Ctrl-C :) In Nov 1985, the RTC et al obtained an injunction against me, based largely on their "trade secret" claim. We appealed that district court injunction to the Ninth Circuit. In August 1986, the Ninth Circuit overturned that injunction. Read the decision: http://superlink.net/~mgarde/woll796.txt A few years later, RTC filed for another TRO and injunction and we ended up in front of the Ninth Circuit again. There are several related decisions from the District Court and from the Ninth Circuit on the same or similar subjects, at: http://superlink.net/~mgarde/op1.html Go to that url and in particular read the listing under: Religious Technology Center v. Scott AND Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, et al. and follow the links. Disclaimer: I am not al lawyer, just a defendant and counter-claimant. I cannot and am not giving legal advice and I am not in the "concert" either -- I cannot afford the concert; I merely point to some interesting information. A very brief summary and the text of the recent (11 April 1996) Ninth Circuit decision are at: http://superlink.net/~mgarde/new.html http://superlink.net/~mgarde/scott5.txt Thanks to mgarde for her excellent web site and the .gif files of that decision are at: http://www.lightlink.com/mayo/gif/ thanks to the lightlink team (love their fractals, too)! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMXbc5umCyCdNXuVZAQGZtgP/XJ0jSluEu+jrd/CiWhsFaBv8qaoC3V3P xdLs7An8I61DjDdYkO1UdMJe/QOsMh+0BU6DohqQgsPp50zt8QwiDKOVRBYeekaX oapLTrKSR28KQ2v1Sh2oMqDQCkWqxC5pbIyRm+NIm7DOub7Q20P6Vvg4I8DLIEDw yZSS1e6bRgU= =Jq2V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rev. David Mayo (finger for key) PGP ID: 1024/4D5EE559 1996/01/04 David Mayo PGP Fingerprint: 0D 69 92 87 79 2F 38 72 FE 03 CE 51 31 D5 6D E9 "So many have fallen, yet so far left to go." Revised after Ninth Circuit decision of 11 April, 1996, " ... not quite so far to go ... " *******************************************************************************