Correspondence From
RTC & Demon & RTC v Google & a.r.s.
Regarding My Page On Scientology

Ava Paquette

18 April 2002 : Ava
Notice of Copyright Infringement

Dear Ms. Palmer:

Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology materials are confidential, unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others, the individual works comprising levels known as "OT II" and "OT III". These works are registered with the United States Copyright Office under registration numbers: TXu 303 388 and TXu 290 496.

We have been advised that you have placed a substantial portion of RTC's OT II and OT III works on your web oage without the authorization of our client.

These copyrighted works can be found under the URLs: [image removed, but part of it can be found here, whilst the text is here] [removed, and the text now seems to have disappeared from other sources too]

Your actions in this regard constitutes an infringement of RTC's copyright in violation of United States copyright law and the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 ("the 1998 Act"). Accordingly, we request that these copyrighted works be removed immediately.

Our clients have obtained numerous permanent injunctions concerning Internet infringements of these same works. For instance, in May 1998, a jury in the United States District Court in San Jose, California assessed damages in the amount of $75,000 against a Mr. Henson for copyright infringement on the Internet. Mr. Henson was also permanently enjoined by the court against further infringements. A United States District Court in the state of Virginia granted judgment for damages, costs, and a permanent injunction related to similar copyright infringement. Permanent injunctions have also been entered in three additional U.S. cases.

Similar results have been reached in Europe. On September 14, 1998, a Swedish court enjoined a defendant who engaged in similar infringements, in addition to finding that his actions in placing our client's copyrighted works on the Internet violated the owner's rights under Swedish copyright law. He was also fined for his illegal actions and ordered to pay $161,000 in litigation costs. This judgment was appealed and subsequently affirmed on March 9, 2001. Thereafter, this same infringer was separately found guilty of criminal violations of the copyright act with respect to RTC's materials. In fact, the judgment went a step further by stating: "Since the purpose was to cause injury, the penalty imposed cannot be merely a fine. Accordingly, penalties are imposed of a conditional sentence plus day fines." That judgment became final on October 4, 2001.

On June 9, 1999, a Dutch court found an individual and numerous Internet service providers had engaged in copyright infringement by posting, or hosting, our clients' copyrighted works on their web sites. The court ruled that the service providers must remove such postings as soon as they are notified of them, subject to a penalty of $2,500 for each day on which they do not comply.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.


Ava Paquette

Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles,
California 90010
Tel: (213) 487-4468
Fax: (213) 487-5385

21 April 2002 : Catherine
Dear Miss Paquette,

Thank you for your email of the 18'th April regarding the quoted files on my site.

Before I comply with your request, I have a few questions which I would be grateful if you could answer.

Having identified the image, can you please specify precisely which items of text are in violation of your client's copyright, and provide evidence of copyright registration and ownership of the image and all texts to corroborate your assertion. For example, contains mostly a summary which is entirely my own work and which does not directly quote anything. Are you claiming this recently-written work is also somehow violating the copyright of your client, RTC? Can you also clarify whether it is only the actual image that is in contention, or the text it contains as well; if the former, will the substitution of a likeness be acceptable?

It is permissible to quote from copyright texts for the purposes of review or critique or satire, as long as the extracts are short and clearly not intended to divert income from the original, as my Scientology page is not and cannot do. Can you please cite the relevant U.K. legislation where this is contradicted when the article is (a) very short and (b) in the public interest.

Hoping you can resolve the above matters and we can arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement,

Yours sincerely,

Jennifer Roughton

24 April 2002 : Jennifer
Dear sir/madam,

It has been brought to our attention that your website located at:-

is in breach of someone elses copyright because you have placed a substantial portion of RTC's OT II and OT III works on your website without the copyright holders authorization.

Therefore, please either remove the material or provide proof that you have permission to use the material, within the next five days. If we do not hear from you and/or you do not remove the material within the next five days then we will have no choice but to suspend access to you website until this matter is resolved.

yours faithfully

Thus Legal Services

Jennifer didn't bother providing any contact details apart from her default return email address, but she can be contacted through Thus on 020 7763 3100; her direct extension is 020 7763 3152

24 April 2002 : Catherine
Dear Jennifer,

Given your return address, can I assume you work for Demon?

All of the OT2 material has already been removed - in fact the whole of Michael Robinson's summary has been taken off, as well as the image of Hubbard's childish scribbling.

As for the actual textual content of the image, I'm seeking advice but whatever happens the Scientology page will be clear of ALL quoted text by this weekend (27-28 April, so well within your 5 days) and replaced with my own summaries which WILL NOT QUOTE ANY TEXT.

The main problem is, though, that if you haven't been informed which parts of the Scientology page contain copyrighted material, how are you supposed to judge whether or not I'm still infringing copyright, because otherwise Paquette can just keep firing off non-specific claims of copyright breaches without providing any evidence. IOW, she can keep claiming my summaries contain copyright information even if they are extremely brief, and no one on your side will be able to check.


27 April 2002 : Anonymous
Dear Catherine,

Thanks for removing the material from the website.


Thus Legal Services

This was truly anonymous and came only from

RTC v Google re Information At My Site & Google's Cache

29 April 2002 : RTC
Sender Information:
   Religious Technology Center
   Sent by: [Private]
   Moxin & Kobrin
   Los Angeles, California, 90010, USA
Recipient Information:
   Google Inc.
   Mountain View, California, 94043, USA
Dear [private]:

In this matter we represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC") owner of the copyrights to the unpublished, confidential works (the "Advanced Technology" works) of the Scientology religion.

Please be advised that there are several postings containing RTC's copyrighted works in the Google usenet archive, which were posted without our client's authorization in violation of United States copyright law. We request that these postings be deleted. These postings can be located under URLs #23 - #24 below.

I have a good faith belief, and in fact know for certain, that the posting of these works was not authorized by my client, any agent of my client, or the law.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of RTC in this matter.

Moxon & Kobrin
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: [private]
Fax: [private]



01 May 2002 : Catherine
I don't know if you would be interested in current developments of the information shown on your page, but as the owner of the site mentioned as #24 I have also received a letter from Ava Paquette regarding the contents of my page, which was cc'd to my ISP, Demon. The letter itself is longer and contains examples of previous prosecutions, but omits citing the texts directly or mentioning the 'penalty or perjury' clause which was sent to Google.

As a result of that, I have removed Michael Robinson's summary (which quoted directly from the OT2 documentation) and modified my own page of Scientology information ( to exclude the OT3 material I had quoted.

Although it may seem as if I've given in to the threat of legal action without any protest, I'm corresponding with someone here in England who has their own Demon pages relating to Scientology (which does quote directly under the 'fair use' provision), and initial compliance is the best way to keep my own site as well as giving me time in which to learn precisely where I stand from a legal viewpoint. Even so, my own page has now doubled in size, for although any directly quoted text has been removed I have expanded the summaries and in so doing revealed far more information than is contained in a mere quote.

Would it be all right if I placed the contents of the table from your site showing Ava's letter to Google onto my own feedback page which deals with this specific issue, or is the letter copyright Google rather than yourselves and you have quoted (and 'private'ed) it with their permission? If you'd like a further update, please let me know,

01 May 2002 : Wendy
Thank you, we do appreciate the update on the status of cases in the Chilling Effects database. If you would like to send us the letter you received, we would be pleased to add that to the database as well.

As for quoting from the letters on our site, we do not claim any copyright in them, and take the position that copying them for the purposes of legal discussion or commentary is fair use. (If they were creative works, the letters would be copyrighted by their authors.)



20 April 2002 : Catherine

I'm wondering if you can help with a problem that's just been thrown my way by Ava Paquette, of Moxon & Kobrin, RTC's lawyers. I'm more than aware of the litigious nature and for obvious reasons don't want to fall foul of a lawsuit against either myself and/or my ISP (Demon internet), but then neither do I want to back down without questioning precisely where I stand, which is why I've replied to Ava requesting clarification of a few points.

The page on my website they are complaining about is :, and Paquette's letter can be found at :, whilst there is also a very draft version of my proposed reply beneath it (all very formal and polite).

All I have done is provide a very brief summary of the story, an image of Hubbard's scribble of the OT 3 incident and a textual equivalent, and Michael Robinson's summary of OT 1 to OT7, this last of which I admit may cause some contention.

Bearing in mind I'm living in the U.K., where exactly do I stand in relation to copyright and what's generally known as the 'fair use' policy of allowing a limited amount of direct quotes for the purposes of analysis or criticism? Ava seems to be claiming that even my own summary is violating their copyright… how can this be true?

In my response I've quoted from Steven Fishman's trial, but this pre-dates the cases Ava quotes where her firm successfully prosecuted ISPs and website owners, so has the 'public domain' status of the documents subsequently been overturned or does every individual case have to be judged on its own merits?

Hoping you can help me with this,

20 April 2002 : Penult
All I have to offer is that you appear to have the permission of Mr. Robinson to post his copyrighted text.

As for the rest of your web site that is between you and whomsoever you obtained the space from and their terms of service. Perhaps you should consult with them?

20 April 2002 : Barb
Ah, I got an Avagram for having the same piccie of Hubbard's scrawl on my site. Although I took it down, I created an incredible facsimile to use in its place.

Email me if you'd like a copy!

20 April 2002 : Beverly
Go to Dave Touretzky's page here: Click on all the URLs beneath his DMCA section. He has sure done a lot of good work there.

Great site!!!

So Ava is stating the summary of the story is so very accurate it is objectionable to Co$ qualifying as copyright violation?

So Ava is verifying that this image is actually HubTOAD's actual handwriting and actual OT3?

So Ava is stating that the equivalent and summary are so very accurate that it qualifies under DMCA copyright?

I mean, she needs to be absolutely specific as to which items she objects to and why. That is the very least that should be done when claiming copyright violations.

She also should list which CST held copyrights that are being objected to and provide the actually CST held registration numbers for each thing on your site she is objecting to.

BTW, some very good stuff there, hope that it doesn't get taken down because of a threat.

Too bad Co$ is being successful and tearing down one by one, slowly but surely, websites that tell the truth they so desperately want hidden.
20 April 2002 : Catherine
Thank you for the URLs above, I'll have a good look at them, and whatever happens I'll be keeping that page of my site with the full sorry saga, though I'm already resigned to having to take down most it.
20 April 2002 : Beverly
Well, you know, you have to do what you have to do, I'm sure you don't have the money, time or resources to fight this, and that is, after all, what RTC acting on behalf of CST rely on.

There have been enough people fed to the lions of financial asphyxiation thanks to CST, we don't need any more.

If you do have to take some things down in order to save the rest of the site, that is fine. You can outline whatever it was that had to have been taken away in your own words and at least the content will stay up.

I admire the heck out of anybody that has a website.

More than anything I could ever say to anyone or post, pointing to the websites for them to get the information is always what the corker is.

So . . .


20 April 2002 : Roger
You're not in a USA state. You don't have to obey what US laws say.

The attorneys of the cult have to show cause in YOUR own law language.

Besides, you don't have to answer ANY of their mail if you don't want to do so: they are not officially acceptable methods of assignation or complaint.

My advice is to ask to Dave, or Jens Tingleff, or Roland Rashleigh Berry, what they would advice in UK.

I've been myself attacked times after times for similar causes in France, and have had to discuss seriously the different aspects of the legal with the legal people from my ISPs, in France and Switzerland.

They have been unable to do anything against me regarding copyrights. Now they are trying other attack points so as to ruin me in futile trials. That's their methods, but the difference is that my sites are the two largest french speaking ones in the world against Scientology.

20 April 2002 : Ralph
The OT3 page that is handwritten looks like an exact copy. That is probably all they have a valid complaint about, as I see it.

Some of the quotes in the section on OT2 might be considered beyond fair use but its rather borderline.

I have an extensive write on NOTs which the CofS has never contested at [Currently Dead Link]

Anyone is welcome to link to it.

A German translation is also available at [Currently Dead Link]

I wrote it 18 years ago and have distributed it to many.

Not a single squeak from the CofS.

If anyone wants to translate it into other languages then I'd be happy to host it too.

21 April 2002 : David
Hummm. Obviously anyone's legal opinions here on a.r.s. would be and are worthless--- which includes mine! :-)

Copyright laws are, as I understand them, international; they are formed by treaty, which is a "higher" law than even a nation's Constitution (that is, law set by treaty supplants law set by national and local governments). This means that the UK's laws on copyright are probably identical or very close to identical with the USA.

Your web page at sure looks like "Fair Use" to me, since it (1) does not quote a significant portion of the alleged copyright the crime syndicate claims it owns, and (2) is not for competitive economic purposes, and (3) was mostly written by yourself--- you own the page; the Scientology crime syndicate does not.

However, Whore Number Two (Ava Paquette) is not interested in the validity of her assertion: her only concern is threatening and intimidating human rights activists such as yourself into silence. This means that even though law and international treaty is on your side, and that you have not, in my opinion, broken any copyright law with the web page, that does not mean you "should" not change the web page----- all the time innocent people are found guilty of crimes they have never committed.

Perhaps you should find out exactly what Whore Number Two is asserting is copyright infringement (it is not clear on your web page), and then decide, upon reply, to change the web page.

One is allowed to publish small portions (including "exact copies") of larger material material, especially when part of a exegesis on that material.

21 April 2002 : Phineas
I sincerely believe they are just trying to intimidate you, in hopes you will comply out of fear.

As I understand it, in the UK if a party loses in a litigation case, they must pay the expenses of the other party. On that alone I doubt sincerely anything will become of it, since they probably know they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. There is so much precedence in your favor. If they do complain to your ISP, then send your ISP this letter (courtesy of David S. Touretzky)

Dear Internet Service Provider:

This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a complaint received about my webpage(s). The pages in question are:

(insert list of URLs here).

The complainant's claim of copyright violation should be rejected because (please see all checked items):

The material in question is not copyrighted, or the copyright has expired. It is therefore in the public domain and may be reproduced by anyone.

The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported.

The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question and is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights.

My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC 107. If the complainant disagrees that this is fair use, he or she is free to take up the matter with me directly, in the courts. You, the ISP, are under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this complainant. Furthermore, siding with the complainant in a manner that interferes with my lawful use of your facilities could constitute breach of contract on your part.

The complaint does not follow the prescribed form for notification of an alleged copyright violation as set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC 512(c)(3). Specifically, the complainant has failed to:

Provide a complaint in written form. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)]

Include a physical or electronic signature of the complainant. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(i)]

Identify the specific copyrighted work claimed to be infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single complaint, provide a representative list of such works. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]

Provide the URLs for the specific files on my website that are alleged to be infringing. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)]

Provide sufficient information to identify the complainant, including full name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)]

nclude a written statement that the complainant has a good faith belief that use of the disputed material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]

Include a written statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi)]

This communication to you is a DMCA counter-notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law.

My name, address, and telephone number are as follows: (insert your name, address and phone number here). I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I reside (or, if my address is outside the United States, any judicial district in which you, the ISP, may be found).

I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.

My actual or electronic signature follows:


Having received this counter-notification, you are now obligated under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the complainant of this notice, and to restore the material in dispute (or not take the material down in the first place), unless the complainant files suit against me within 10 days.

21 April 2002 : Bam
Replace the OT3 image with a link to the one on this page

22 April 2002 : Stephen
"Fair Use", as such, seems to me to be more of an American concept than a British one, if only because copyright litigation in the US seems to be much more about how far over the line the plaintiff/defendant can go.

So don't expect to be able to rely solely on a fair use defence: but remember that a public interest defence is much more likely to carry weight in the UK than in the US. You could quite reasonably claim that what you are putting on the web is a) in the public interest ("this is what they want you to pay £x,000 for"), and fair use, in that it consists of smaller quotes from a large body of work.

But none of this will be much use unless you actually end up in court, and I think you probably want to avoid that if you can.

What I suggest you do is to go back to Ava, and demand from her a point-by-point statement of what she considers to be infringing. History has shown that, when Scientology are pressed to make specific allegations, instead of their traditional "copyright terrorist" broad-brushed claims, they often fail to follow through, or even back down. Demand to see documentary evidence, too, of the ownership of the copyrights: again, Scn are reluctant to get into the business of providing information when what they're attempting to do is suppress it. Any tactics which, should you find yourself having to defend yourself in court, would lead a judge to believe that you had made ongoing good-faith efforts to resolve the issue prior to arriving at court, are good ones. Scientology will be attempting to paint you as some kind of loony who gets kicks from putting Scn sekrit skripture on the 'net: you need to show yourself as someone who is serious about this, takes the whole matter seriously, and is genuinely attempting to find a reasonable way out which doesn't involve capitulating to them.

Remember that US law has absolutely no bearing in a UK court. Briefs which serve to demonstrate the actions of Scientology, or their past behaviour during litigation, whether in the US or elsewhere, are perfectly valid, but avoid making, or trying to make, any legal point on the basis of anything other than UK law: you'll find that you will be shot down in flames if you do.

But, to answer your question, general issues like this would be decided on a case-by-case basis, obviously with reference to cases in the same jurisdiction that set precedent. But to make such a defence, you'd actually have to be in court, I think.

In summary:

- reply to Ava Paquette, requesting an itemised list of all the items she alleges are infringing (then go through your site and confirm that the claims she makes are true in fact, at least),

- when she has given you this list, write back and request proof of copyright for EACH item she alleges is infringing. "Proof of copyright" would, I should have thought, entail production of copyright registration documents - if they were to take this to court, any reasonable defence would expect to have sight of these, but I believe that, in some cases, Scientology may have problems in producing them: in the Bonnie Woods case a couple of years ago, they dropped their action because Bonnie demanded that they produce other documents in support of their suit.

- dispute everything, and ask for clarification/evidence on every occasion where you could reasonably do so. Do not take anything as read, even from their lawyers/ solicitors: they are perfectly capable of making completely off-the-wall claims.

- conduct all correspondence in writing/email (writing is better, but means that they have your postal address). They'll allege all kinds of things otherwise, and WHATEVER YOU DO, if they turn up at your door, refuse to speak or discuss ANYTHING with them. Anything whatsoever. Including the weather, even. If they should turn up (they did it to me a few years back), they won't take no for an answer, and they'll be ever so reasonable. They'll make you feel mean and petty for not wanting to sit down and discuss it in a friendly way. You won't be mean and petty: Scientology has mean and petty down to a T, and nobody's going to out-do them on it. So refuse to speak to them, and if necessary threaten to call the police: in any case, officers of the court (assuming you get a visit from a solicitor, as I did) are not supposed to harass, interfere with, or attempt to put pressure on parties in court cases that they, too, are parties to.

If all else fails, and they're getting too hot on you, take the site down: it's not worth messing up your entire life over. But you can make Scn hurt even more: if that happens, put up another page telling the story of how they shut you up, and link to someone else's OT3, etc. Let Scientology spend all their money playing whack-a-mole, and maybe in six months, you get to put your site back up again!

Good luck, and remember: I'm not a lawyer, and this advice is worth every penny you paid for it! :-)