Kobrin's second e-mail to me
29 sept. 1995 (KS-8)

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 22:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Helena Kobrin <hkk@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Your mail
To: Karin Spaink <kspaink@xs4all.nl>

Dear Ms. Spaink,

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. 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.

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 What is attached to the declaration is copies of confidential, unpublished religious scriptures. My client takes *substantial* measures, found to be so by multiple courts, to preserve the confidentiality of these materials. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

I cannot send you original copies of these materials because they are confidential and unpublished, and we do not give them out to anyone.

In case you feel you need additional information, I am including below the copyright registration numbers for these materials.

     OT I--------Txu 690894, 303382
     OT II-------Txu 303388
     OT III------Txu 290486
     OT IV-------Txu 690893, 690901, 690902
     OT V--------Txu 690899, 690903
     OT VI-------Txu 690906
     OT VII------Txu 690889, 690890, 690891, 690892, 690894,
                     690895, 698898

I hope that you now understand the basis of my request, and are willing to remove these materials from the Web Site. As I understand you also encouraged others to post them, I am requesting that you post a new statement encouraging others to remove them. If you are willing to be cooperative, then I have no further reason to communicate with your access provider.

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. 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.

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, but not copyright infringement by posting of stolen works. To me, the latter is even worse because it violates proprietary rights.

Please let me know what you will do in response to my message.

Helena Kobrin