This site is being censored by scientology

Return to my homepage

This is the English translation of the letter I sent to Hermans.

Nauta Dutilh Advocaten
T.a.v. mr. R. Hermans
Postbus 7113
1007 WV Amsterdam

ir. J.C.A. Wevers

Roermond, June 11, 1998

Mr. Hermans,

In response to your fax to mr. Bregonje the following.

Firstly, it is unknown to me that your client, CSI, has any copyrights on the documents you listed. I can't find the name CSI anywhere on named documents and because your client is well-known for greatly exagerating and completely fabricating claims I see no reason to believe you face value.

Secondly, you client did not discover "recently" that I placed these documents on my homepage but knew it earlier. I have knowledge of someone who has been harassed by your client because he hyperlinked to these documents. Therefore, your statement that your client has a short-term interest is incorrect.

If it is a problem for your client that named documents are not legally published, I can inform you that I already have taken preparations to send named documents to the Swedisch parliament. The parliament will then copy them for everyone interested due to their version of the law on openness of administration, as is currently happening with the so-called NOTs. I hope this action will remove this objection soon.

Regarding your demands: shortly, they are bullshit. I have no prove at all of your clients copyrights and will remove nothing untill I have. Further, I have no influence on the contents of websites I link to so your demand to remove information from there is completely ridiculous. Further I will hyperlink to any site I like. If your client wants to dispute this he'd better sue emediately.

Further I want to point out to you that some of named documents have been captured by the FBI from the Guardians Office, one of the many subbranches of the Scientology cult. A judge in the USA has ruled that these documents can be distributed by third parties (I assume your client has "forgotten" to tell you this). See UNITED STATES of America v. Mary Sue HUBBARD, et al. 1982, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 82-1693.

Further I would like to ask you if you have read named documents yourself. If you did, you will certainly understand that a court case would result in a lot of negative publicity for your clients.

Finally, while I am writing you anyway, I want to inform you that your client has, in its court case against Grady Ward in the USA, has declared certain things about a member of your lawfirm, ms. Pelkmans.

Your client has declared that in a personal meeting I had with mr. McShane and ms. Rijnvis, representatives of your client, and ms. Pelkmans in Roermond at September 18, 1996, ms. pelkmans would have heard and later confirmed that I would have said I was not the person who posted the NOTs the first time. At the same time I have filed an sworn affidavit in the same court case stating the opposite. I did never make such a statement and it may be possible that you office member will be connected to a perjury case. This could have an influence on the reputation of your office. I ask you to request your client to be a bit more carefull with the truth in the future.

Awayting your reply I sign,

ir. J.C.A. Wevers.