Reply to second e-mail from Helena Kobrin
October 5 1995
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Helena Kobrin)
Subject: Re: Your mail
From: email@example.com (Karin Spaink)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 00:13:21 GMT
Hello Ms. Kobrin
> I have no idea what sort of evidence you wish to have of who
> I am. My name is well known as counsel for RTC and as having
> this Internet ID.
The name 'Helena Kobrin' is indeed well-know, but I have no evidence at all that you are indeed she. Apart from the forgeries originating at netcom, which I explained to you in my previous letter, there is more reason for - well, shall we say, suspension of belief?
For instance, I recently learned that Helena Kobrin was present in person during at least two raids on people (Lerma and Penny), while at the same time Helena Kobrin logged in at netcom, using the account firstname.lastname@example.org. Observers have reported that the Helena Kobrin who was present at these raids, was not meanwhile logging in.
So I am still wondering with which Helena I am corresponding.
> If you would like a faxed or mailed letter
> from me, provide me with your fax number or address, and this
> letter will also be sent to you on letterhead.
Seeing that your Dutch lawyers have found my adress, I'd perhaps better refer you to them.
> If you are sincere in your statement that you are aware of
> the importance of copyright laws, then we should be able to
> resolve this easily.
> It is not correct that what you have is simply a "court
> document." What is attached to the declaration is copies of
> confidential, unpublished religious scriptures.
Still, it is just a court file. No matter who's material is cited in them or attached to them.
> My client takes
> substantial measures, found to be so by multiple courts, to
> preserve the confidentiality of these materials.
I remember having read that they may be quoted and are considered to have been circulating for a long time already?
> While the so-
> called "Fishman documents" were deposited in a court file, the
> claims that they were copied from the court file are false, as we
> have verified with the clerk of the court.
Ah. But Judge Brinkema said differently; she refuted the claim that they were stolen, and as I know her status and position and am still in the dark about yours, I tend to give more weight to her words.
> You are not incorrect that generally things that are in
> court records may be copied. However, depositing a copyrighted
> work into a court record does not give license to copy it in
> violation of the copyright laws of your country or the United
> States. Someone could look at the document, but copying it would
> still be a violation of the copyright laws.
They may be looked at, they may be read, they may be copied for personal use, they may be shown to others (which is what I am doing); they may not be sold. I do not ask digicash for visitis to my homepage.
> If you are a writer,
> you should be able to appreciate that if something you wrote--a
> book or an article--were put into a court file for any reason, it
> would not give someone the right to make a copy from the court
> file and then copy it and pass it out to others in violation of
> your copyright.
I have, on another homepage, a huge collection of essays and articles, free for others be read and to be copied to their own personal computer, so that they can read them at ease. They are and will remain copyrighted. Sometimes people make prints and give these to others - something you would obviously consider a violation of my copyrights, but which I applaud; because very often I hear that reading these copies makes people want to buy my books.
I would only consider my copyright violated when somebody would multiply my essays, articles and stories to make money out of it.
And you see, my articles &c are not even in a court file. And if they were, they would still be copyrighted; and others would still be able to read them and copy them.
> There are several other important facts. First, the court
> file in which these documents had been placed is sealed and was
> sealed before your posting to prevent access to these materials.
> Second, these materials are of such significance to my clients
> that they had people at the court checking out the files every
> day before they were sealed, so that others could not obtain
> access to them.
You mean, you tried to prevent US citizens from exercizing their right to read them? And you consider yourself to be a lawyer? My oh my. Somehow I am lead to believe that I am corresponding with the wrong Helena.
> Third, you are probably also not informed that the only
> way these materials have ever left the Church is through theft.
> In fact, a person served time in a Danish prison in the 1980's in
> connection with a theft of some of these materials. Any copy of
> the materials which you have obtained was available only as the
> result of an earlier theft.
A rant which I have heard before, but has been refuted in court time after time. They could be obtained from the Clerk of the Court. Many members of your cult had them in their possession and have lost them, for others to find. Many members of your cult bought them. In fact, I read that Steven Fishman himself has started a lawsuit against you, RTC, CoS or whatever, to stop them - you - from saying again and again that he stole them. They were his legal possession.
> I cannot send you original copies of these materials because
> they are confidential and unpublished, and we do not give them
> out to anyone.
I asked you for a stamped original, so that I could remove any parts that might be on my homepage but were not included in the original court file - as you may know, sometimes people mess with digitalized documents, and as my copy is digital, I have no way to see whether others have added some material. I wrote you before that I would never want to publish more than this court file. I was most obliging, I think. But you refuse to help me out on this?
> In case you feel you need additional information, I am
> including below the copyright registration numbers for these materials.
> OT I ---- Txu 690894, 303382
But what are these numbers? Serial numbers? Credit card numers? Telephone numbers? Please tell me what they refer to and where I might look them up.
> I hope that you now understand the basis of my request, and
> are willing to remove these materials from the Web Site.
Under present conditions, I am not.
> As I
> understand you also encouraged others to post them, I am
> requesting that you post a new statement encouraging others to
> remove them.
So that's why I recieved a second e-mail from you when there were still so many people in Holland you had not yet contacted? Do you consider me to be Big Organizer?
You understood wrongly. I did not encourage anybody to post anything. Also, what does posting have to do with homepages, which is what we are discussing now? I know that many people put up Fishman-homepages after I did. It's just that - well, of course you don't know, but I am rather famous in the Netherlands, and the fact that I put up a Fishman-homepage attracted some media-attention and incited lots of others to do the same. For instance a member of parliament, who absolutely relied on my judgement in this. By the way: he has not received mail from you, as of yet.
> If you are willing to be cooperative, then I have
> no further reason to communicate with your access provider.
I am cooperative. But you tend to obscure things and you ignore some verdicts. If you are as willing to discuss this as I am, I am sure we could have a much more valuable conversation.
> I also want to make very clear that we have no interest in
> opposing anyone's freedom of speech. In fact, my clients are
> strong advocates of freedom of speech and supporters of the First
> Amendment to the US Constitution and similar provisions in
> Constitutions of other countries. They and I have taken no
> action against and make no objection to hundreds of messages
> directed at me personally and at my clients, which are offensive,
> vile and false.
Ah. So it's the other Helena Kobrin who posted a rmgroup-message for
alt.religion.scientology on January 11, 1995?
> It is only when intellectual property rights are
> being violated that we act. From what you have said in you
> message, you should understand this.
But you still have not explained why I may not publish a court document. I know your cult has tried to prevent this document from being public before, and I have admitted that the file contains material that is copyrighted by your cult, but that is another issue
> With respect to communication with your access provider, I
> will be happy to deal solely with you if you are willing to
> cooperated. It is strange to me that you feel that spamming or
> chain letters should be addressed by an access provider,
Because they clutter the whole system underlying Internet, including theirs.
> but not
> copyright infringement by posting of stolen works. To me, the
> latter is even worse because it violates proprietary rights.
Again, I am not posting any material that you claim; and again, the material I have on my homepage is not stolen; and again, I still believe I am not violating your copyrights.
> Please let me know what you will do in response to my message.
I have answered it and forwarded it to my provider, and I am eagerly waiting for your reply which, I hope, may clarify things a bit.
Copyright Karin Spaink.
This text is offered for personal use only. Any
other use requires the author's written permission.