VIA FACSIMILE (727) 821-3117 and U.S. Mail

Thomas McGowan, Esq.
150 Second Ave. North
Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Re: Courage Productions, LLC-“The Profit”

I have spoken to my client and we offer the following response to the last communications received from your office. First, the film “The Profit” is not subject to any restrictions based on defamation, or any other content based concerns. This film is fully and completely protected by the First Amendment and absolutely nothing contained in the film would suffice to justify any limitation on its exhibition. The accusations contained in your earlier letter are nothing more than a clear example of Scientology’s unyielding view of the First Amendment as a “one way street.” The same constitutional protections that extend to their “religious practices” extend equally to those who reject their religious practices and also provide protection to those who are vocal in their criticism of Scientology, or who would like to place the issues surrounding the Church for full evaluation through the “robust exchange of ideas and information.” If Scientology is ever to escape its negative persona, it must strive to embrace the Voltaireian concept of, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” If Scientology doesn’t like the criticism leveled against it, it should respond with sensible responses to that criticism, not censorship or retribution.

As it pertains to the latest letter, In contrast to Mr. Minton's actions and those of his apparent agent, Mark Bunker, who posted 3rd generation editing clips, your client's actions made the film appear to be of poor quality and thus damaged the marketability and value of the film. Further, Mr. Minton's agent, Bunker, put said poor quality clips on a website for the Lisa McPherson Trust and Bunker's own anti-Scientology website, Xenutv.com.

As per the letter that you reference, we demanded that any clips and marketing of the film should be done from THE PROFIT's own website (www.theprofit.org) , so your point is therefore moot, since the referenced clip appears on said website. More importantly, we regard your letter and its attempts to curb the marketing of our film to be further evidence of Mr. Minton's continued bad faith regarding the project. The clip being shown on THE PROFIT website is a teaser segment of the film, and serves as a trailer for the movie. Additionally, since you've brought the Youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C327nSnqKw8 ) to our attention, my client was pleased to notice that all the comments were very positive regarding the film, which should lighten your client’s heart about the marketability of the film. Please inform Mr. Minton that we see this as a good sign that releasing the film will be well-timed in this current environment of avid interest in the perceived subject matter and general hyperbole of the work. Criticism and satire are protected by the First Amendment, so protestations to the contrary are pointless.

Rather than damage any asset of the LLC, the short clip merely keeps the film in the public eye, and in a positive way. The negative and discrediting comments made by the film's detractors, including Mr. Minton's current or former employees, such as Mark Bunker, are false and without foundation, and rather are merely continued attempts by Mr. Minton's new "partners," the Church of Scientology, to damage and try to destroy this important film through any means whatsoever, regardless of the best interests of the LLC, or any legitimate public interest.

We are well aware of the fact that court records show that Mr. Minton made a deal with the Church of Scientology to ensure that the film "never saw the light of day," and that his conveyance of power of attorney to you, as witnessed by Mike Rinder, then chief of the infamous Scientology OSA, was merely a device to allow the Church to dictate your actions in this matter. Your letter is further evidence of this.

Therefore, we wish to inform you as the agent of the Church of Scientology that the posting of a film clip is no more a violation of the agreement than was the posting of the film's trailer on the internet. This trailer actually was a marketing tool, and was posted on the internet for seven years without comment by Mr. Minton or his new partner, the Church of Scientology. This current clip is just a device to keep the film in the public eye, until such time as Mr. Minton’s actions with respect to the film are no longer controlled by the Church of Scientology.

This clip does not detract from the value of the film and therefore does not show the kind of bad faith that Mr. Minton has continually shown since he became an accomplice of the Church of Scientology.

In the Second District Court opinion dealing with this debacle, the facts were accurately noted: