QUESTIONS RE COPYRIGHT/TRADE SECRET

Once the Co$ has claimed that Xeno and the OT3 materials are protected [by either copyright OR trade secret] are they not BARRED by the doctrine of ESTOPPEL in law from alleging that any part of those items are in the public domain? I.e., if you can show their pleadings or court record to claim the first [protection], they cannot claim the second [public domain]?.

This should require that a blanket protection decision be made about all the OT3 materials as a block, i.e. it's either all public domain or all protected. The likely thing is that ALL of OT3 would be declared public domain. No?

Doesn't a trade secret claim deny a copyright claim, and vice versa? If you claim both, doesn't it mean legally that you get NONE, because you have alleged information under penalty of perjury that destroys both claims? If it's copyrighted, a true and exact copy is in the Library of Congress. If it's a trade secret, only you have it. If you even ALLEGE that you have a copyright, I think you must be estopped from ALLEGING that you have a trade secret. I think they shot themselves in both legs, No? Who is in a position to assert that claim? If there's no *true and exact* copy in Library of Congress, then there is NO COPYRIGHT!. If there *is* a true and exact copy there, then they MAY have a copyright, but they CERTAINLY do NOT have a trade secret.

If they claim trade secrets, don't they also lose all rights once the secret gets out? I.e., the burden is upon the secret holder to keep the secret a secret. If he then sells the secret to EIGHT MILLION $CIENTOLOGISTS, and a few of them are careless and lose their materials, or some $P in the org makes them public, that is the fault, and the problemn, of the secret keeper. [There are COUNTRIES smaller than 8 million population. If a whole country knew something, how could you sanely make a claim that it was a secret?] Apparently the secret holder sold the secret to too many people. The commercial value of the trade secret has simply expired because it's no longer a secret. It has already been sold to too many people to be a secret from anybody except $cientologist$ [who are trying to get the money to pay for it, instead of reading it for free in public documents, like Time Magazine, which they are forbidden to read.] Oh well, patents run out too, after 17 years. The've ALREADY got 30 OR 40 years out of this con job.

There is no remedy at law I know of to sue someone because they know your trade (not-quite) "secret." If someone broke into your safe and stole it, that is a punishable crime, but a third party is not guilty of anything by Knowing such Former Secret once out. Once it is no longer a secret, it's no longer a secret. It has no copyright. It's in the public domain. There is no quasi-secret status. There is no "little bit public/pregnant." IF *ANYONE* IN THE PUBLIC KNOWS IT, IT'S PUBLIC! There is NO restriction on transmission within the public domain. The remedy is to guard the next secret better. IF YOU WANT IT TO BE A SECRET, DON'T SELL IT TO EIGHT MILLION FORMER "RAW MEAT WOGS," [I.E. FUTURE EX-$CIENTOLOGI$T$].

I notice that the Co$ is asserting that this copying of their $acred $cripture$ is destroying the Market Value of those $acred document$. Excuse me? Don't trade secret and market value of $cripture$ arguments CONFESS EXPLICITLY IN COURT DOCUMENTS that the purpose of the Co$=$? Doesn't that violate their church charter and place them in the same tax status as any other greed by the numbers organization? Don't their own pleadings contain sufficient evidence of their true intentions and purposes to discredit, refute and invalidate all of the religious exemption claims? Can't someone request the courts to take judicial notice of the Co$'s own pleadings to hang them with? Can't you get a Summary Judgement on these issues with their own pleadings?

[I had thought that there was a distinction between "fair use" of excerpts [as from one commercially printed document in another commercially printed document] and "educational" use, and that educational use was expressly allowed. However, I can't find the literature from the Library of Congress I thought I read this in, and I don't find it in Title 17 on the web. Did I just mis-remember this?]

Sincerely yours,

__________

[Co$igned]

Body N. Thetan [TM],

$P3X++, KoX8.08, Henry3.0, NO.T8-P ["Freedom from $cientology" -- Provisional Certificate awarded pending completion of InTurnSHip; Co-Auditing NO.T9, "Freedom From $cientologi$t$."]

** "FULLFILLING THE ROLE OF THE ANTI-RON" **

[All opinions expressed are strictly those of Body N. Thetan [TM]. Permission to freely reproduce is granted to everyone EXCEPT: the Co$, Church of Scientology, Religious Technology Center, Scientologists, $cientologi$t$, their adherents, co-conspirators, agents, co-plaintiffs, assignees, attorneys, dupes, Rondroids, lackeys, employees, employers, blackmailers, blackmailees, etc., generally and specifically, jointly and severally. Penalty for each infringement is $10,000 U.S. [payable in gold on demand] per character per reproduction per day of storage, minimum. Malicious Reproduction Mandates triple penalties. Reproduction or transmission in any way whatsoever validates this contract and its Mandatory Minimum Penalties. Possession of data, printouts or copies is prima facie proof of reproduction or transmission. May not be sold OR fixed-price-donated under any circumstances except by written permission of Body N. Thetan [TM].]