I wonder if Scientology’s poster boy, Tom Cruise, is jumping on any couches now.

A woman who claims she was tricked into spending all of her savings — €21,000– on Scientology training and paraphernalia filed suit in the French courts. The church naturally denies the charges. From the BBC:

Her lawyers will argue that the church systematically seeks to make money by means of mental pressure and the use of scientifically dubious “cures”.

A lawyer for the church, Patrick Maisonneuve, told AFP news agency: “We will contest every charge and prove that there was no mental manipulation.”

Scientologists called as witnesses by the defence are expected to argue that they espouse a belief system like any other.

True, if those others were also created from whole cloth by a B-grade science fiction author, or if they charge beaucoups dollars (or euros) for the privilege of receiving religious instruction.

Also named in the suit are seven individual Scientologists, some of whom are charged with practicing pharmacy without a license.

According to this report, there originally were five plaintiffs, but three settled (bought off by) the church for undisclosed sums.

If the CoS is found guilty, it will have to close up shop in France. Another country’s citizens will be safe from these con artists.

Freshwater allegedly burned a cross on the student’s arm with a Tesla coil, a common science lab demo device that generally should be kept far from human flesh. (I speak from personal experience.)

Anyway, this teacher, who subscribes to some kind of wacko right-wing Christianity, wants the names of the student and his parents made public. In a town where folks are already polarized over Freshwater’s “I will keep a Bible in the classroom no matter what” crusade, revealing the names of the family would be tantamount to inviting people to burn crosses in their front yard.

Yeah, it’s that bad in mid-Ohio. Land of the free, and all that.

Ed Brayton at Scienceblogs has the gory details.

While Freshwater’s superiors at the Mount Vernon schools dither, the family of one of his students have resorted to the all-American method of getting to the root of things — they’re suing him and the school district.

The suit claims that Freshwater violated the student’s civil rights by allegedly burning a cross into his arm with a Tesla coil and and that his superiors were negligent in not disciplining Freshwater.

The school district hired an outsider to investigate the allegations against Freshwater, an otherwise popular seventh-grade science teacher. That report is due Friday, at which time the school board will make some decision about Freshwater’s future, supposedly.

Freshwater made a name for himself earlier last year by refusing to remove his Bible from his desk. Christians loved his “Christ’s warrior” decision, but civil libertarians demurred. It then came out that Freshwater was a bit of a religious nut, proselytizing students, teaching creationism, and on at least one instance, burning a cross on a student’s arm with a Tesla coil.

That apparently woke up his superiors from their overly cautious slumber. They put an observer in his classroom while the independent investigators did their thing, and delayed any disciplinary action until the investigators filed their report.

Anyway, the lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Columbus earlier his week. I don’t have a copy of the complaint, but Ed Brayton over at ScienceBlogs does. He is as aghast at this whole mess as I am. How any teacher could be allowed to get away with this kind of malarkey defies all logic.

I wish Mr Freshwater good luck in court. He’s gonna need it.

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge has promised a fast decision in a lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono to get the song Imagine taken out of a movie challenging the concept of Darwinian evolution.

A lawyer for the movie’s distributors has warned that the litigation could wreck the movie’s political message by preventing it from impacting viewers in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential campaign.

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories and suggesting life could have originated through intelligent design. About 20 to 30 seconds of the song are played in the movie.

Ono has accused the movie’s producers of infringing the song’s copyrights by using it without her permission, giving the impression that the Lennon family had authorized it.

US District Judge Sidney Stein’s ruling will settle whether the producers of the film can release it to Canadian theaters and to DVD as planned. The Canadian premiere is scheduled for June 6, according to Premise Media’s attorney Anthony Falzone. DVD rights have to be finalized by the end of this month for an October release, he said.

As for the political impact of the film, this decision will have little effect. The movie is a dog. It has been losing audiences and theaters steadily since it opened April 18, despite all the publicity — good or bad — about it. If the producers of this film think it has any political impact, they’re dreaming.

The suit is only part of the movie’s legal woes, stemming from its use of a short clip of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” The producers failed to obtain permission to use the song, and Lennon’s heirs and publisher are crying foul.

Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, his two sons, and EMI Blackwood filed a copyright infringement suit April 22 in US District Court in Manhattan demanding at least $75,000 in damages, a complete recall of the existing version of the movie, now playing in about 200 theaters, and an injunction against further distribution of the movie.

EMI Blackwood and Capitol Records followed that suit up with another in state court, demanding a preliminary injunction against further distribution of the movie.

There were hearings yesterday in both the federal and state cases. In the state case, Judge Richard Lowe stayed a temporary restraining order issued April 30 barring further distribution of the movie until he rules on the preliminary injunction issue. There’s no word yet on the federal case, brought by Yoko and Lennon’s sons.

Premise Media contends that the use of the Lennon song was well within the “fair use” policy of US copyright law. The case attracted the attention of Stanford Law School’s Fair Use project, which is defending Premise, et alia, in federal and NY state courts. Lawyers for the defendants argue that using the song in the movie is an exercise of their free speech rights, as well as fair use.

The EMI suit and the response to it are now on Scribd.com.

Here’s the EMI suit:

and the response to it.

The temporary restraining order issued April 30 does not affect existing screenings of the anti-evolution film, which uses a segment of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” as an example of “Darwinist” philosophy. Lennon’s heirs filed suit April 24 in US District Court in Manhattan against the producers and distributors of the film, alleging copyright and trademark infringement and requesting monetary damages and an injunction against any showing of the film in its present form.

Expelled is showing in 656 theaters nationally, and has gross box office receipts topping $6 million.

The parties involved in the suit have until May 6 (Wednesday) to produce documents supporting their cases. Premise Media and its co-defendants have until May 14 to argue against the injunction. The plaintiffs, Yoko Ono Lennon, John Lennon’s sons and his publisher, EMI Blackwood, have until May 16 to rebut. Final arguments are due May 19.

Justice is swift, for some of us anyway.

Here is the text of the judge’s order:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon the annexed Affidavit of Yoko Ono Lennon dated April 29, 2008, Declaration of Dorothy M. Weber, Esq. dated April 30, 2008, Affadavit of Darnetha L. M’Baye dated April 29,2008, Declaration of Nancy Weshkoff dated April 29, 2008, together with the Exhibits annexed thereto; the accompanying Memorandum of Law and the Summons and Complaint, and all proceedings heretofore had herein

-page-

IT IS ORDERED BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES in open court on April 30, 2008 or as otherwise ordered by this Court, Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc. (the “Defendants”), be and they are hereby are enjoined PENDING THE HEARING of the motion for a preliminary injunction from distributing any additional copies of the Movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” (the “Movie”) beyond those third party venues which possess and are showing the Movie as of the date of this Order. Defendants ALSO AGREE THAT pending the hearing of the motion for preliminary injunction they WILL NOT MANUFACTURE or PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTE ANY CDs or DVDs of THE MOVIE anywhere in the world.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs will be permitted to conduct expedited discovery. Defendants will produce the following documents on or before _May 6_, 2008: (i) a complete copy of the Movie, (ii) Defendants’ agreements,

-page-

licenses and contracts with third parties in connection with rights and permissions for all musical compositions or “clips of third-party film or video footage, still photography, and any and copyrighted materials included in the Movie; (iii) documents and opinions obtained by Defendants in connection with their use of the song “Imagine” in the Movie which support any defense of fair use or first amendment; and (iv) Plaintiff will produce documents on or before May 6, 2008, reflecting the exclusive administration by EMI Blackwood Music, Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants show cause before the Honorable Sidney H. Stein, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, Courtroom 23A, on May _19_, 2008, at 4:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an order should not be entered, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent and equitable powers, during the pendency of this action:

-page-

1. enjoining and prohibiting the Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from further use of any portion, or the music and lyrics, in any media, of the musical composition written by John Lennon entitled “Imagine”, or committing any further copyright infringement with respect thereto;

2. recalling for destruction or editing out of any and all references to the Song “Imagine” any and all copies of the Movie from all third-party distributors or editing those copies to remove the infringing Song;

3. awarding to the Plaintiffs costs, attorney fees and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that good and sufficient service of this Order to Show Cause and other papers on which it is based shall be made, via hand delivery or Federal Express overnight delivery, to be received on or before April 30, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. on Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc. c/o Allen C. Wasserman, Esq., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, 885 Third Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10022 and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served upon Plaintiffs by hand delivering copies thereof to Plaintiffs counsel, Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman LLP, 111 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019 on or before May _14_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.; and

-page-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that reply papers, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon Dendants by hand delivering copies thereof to be retrieved by Defendants’ counsel, on or before May _16_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m..
On consent, no undertaking is required for the T.R.O.

_Sidney H. Stein_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: New York, New York
April 30, 2008

ISSUED: _4:23 p.m._

While the Lennons and EMI Blackwood Music allege copyright infringement and trademark damage, the makers of Expelled claim their use of “Imagine” falls within the “fair use doctrine” of copyright law, which allows critics and commentators the freedom to use short quotations or excerpts from a work in order to write about it. While the film makers obtained permission from other musicians to use their work in the film, they did not however seek similar permission from Lennon’s heirs.

Soon after the film opened April 18, a blogger at The Huffington Post, falsely accused Yoko Ono Lennon of “selling out” her husband’s legacy, which created a storm of anti-Yoko venom in the blogosphere. The adverse publicity forms part of the lawsuit against Expelled‘s producers and distributors.

Last week, Stanford University Law School’s Fair Use Project agreed to represent the makers of Expelled in court.

Last week, Yoko Ono Lennon, Sean and Julian Lennon and EMI Blackwood Publishing filed a $75,000 copyright and infringement lawsuit against Premise Media and its associated companies, alleging that the makers of Expelled used a fragment of Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” without their permission. The suit also alleges that the association of the song with the anti-evolution polemic damages the reputation of Lennon, his “trademark,” and his heirs.

Premise Media representatives assert their use of the song and its lyrics fell within the “fair use doctrine” of US copyright law, and that they did not need to obtain permission to use “Imagine” in the movie. The filmmakers did obtain permission from other music used in the movie, however.

“The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they may represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project. “These rights are under attack here, and we plan to defend them.”

Falzone will serve as counsel on the case along with Stanford Law colleagues Julie A. Ahrens and Brandy Karl. The Stanford team will be joined by Roy Hardin and April Terry, partners at the Dallas office of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

The Lennon heirs’ suit, filed in US District Court in Manhattan April 24, demands that Premise cease using the song in the movie, which would require the existing 35 mm prints be recalled from the more than 1,000 theaters showing the film nationally. It also demands a minimum of $75,000 in damages be paid to Lennon’s heirs.