----- begin usenet post ----- From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: The frolic of e-mail Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:15:02 +0200 Message-ID: <32283AD6.220B@dodo.pp.se> The following correspondence used up bandwidth today: Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:07:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Helena Kobrin To: oracle@dodo.pp.se Dear Mr. Panoussis: Your posting of 31 August 1996 states that you are making available the NOTs materials and the Fishman Affidvit at the following web site: http://130.244.97.141/not/index.htm http://130.244.97.141/ot/cos.htm As you are well aware, the NOTs works and the OT II and OT III material contained in the attachments to the Fishman Affidavit are copyrighted, unpublished works belonging to my client, Religious Technology Center. It is hereby demanded that you permanently block access to this web site. It is further demanded that you delete these materials from the web site, as your placement of them on this computer violates my client's rights. Sincerely, Helena K. Kobrin -----------------------------end copy-------------------------------- and --------------------------- begin copy------------------------------- Subject: NOTs & OTs & God knows WHATs Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:37:36 +0200 From: Zenon Panoussis To: Helena Kobrin References: 1 > Your posting of 31 August 1996 states that you are making available > the NOTs materials (...) Should I understand that you read a.r.s.? In such case you must have noticed my posting titled "News & decisions" in which I quoted a message to Dahlman Magnusson advokatbyrå. In case you missed it, I'll quote it here too, translated from Swedish: ================================================================= Subject: Enquiry about power of attorney Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:44:19 +0200 From: Zenon Panoussis To: dm@dma.se I would need two clarifications. - Does Pär Leander or anybody else in the law firm represent RTC or any other alleged owner of rights to "Operating Thetan" or "New Era Dianetics"? - If yes, do you intend to take any judicial actions as a result of my publication of these works, the aforementioned on an Internet web page and in print, the latter in a newsgroup on the Internet? I will interpret a failure to reply as a negative reply. Sincerely ZP ================================================================= Having received no reply at all after two entire working days, I assume that Dahlman Magnusson no longer represent the CoS, RTC etc. If they still do, their lack of reply indicates their clients' lack of interest in what I do. So, in a way, your message surprises me. > As you are well aware, the NOTs works and the OT II and OT III > material contained in the attachments to the Fishman Affidavit are > copyrighted, unpublished works belonging to my client, Religious > Technology Center. The OT II and OT III are not at all unpublished works. They are published in Sweden with ISBN 91-630-4721-7, have been fairly widely distributed and are on sale by me. If you would like to order, you will find an order form in a.r.s. As for the NOTs, I have to this day not seen any proof of any copyright to them. I find this dispute between us interesting, but I am not sure if I would like to widen it at this moment. I have still more documents in my hand that I consider publishing and to which The CoS or some related body might have claims of copyright. I would therefore ask you to indicate a way in which I formally and provenly can submit such documents to your clients for examination and give them the opportunity to make their copyright claims *before* my publication instead of after it. The appointment by your clients of a legal representative in Sweden with power of attorney to (at least) this precise purpose would provide me with such a possibility. On the contrary, submitting documents to you in the USA through whatever legal procedures is out of my reach, while submitting them to you by e-mail or similar methods provides weak proofs of what was really submitted; therefore are both these methods out of the question. I will await a reply from you in this subject until Tuesday the 3rd of September, 16.00 *central European summer time* (UTC+2). If you clearly indicate in a timely reply that you will appoint an empowered representative in Sweden, I will await another three working days for you to actually do so. Thereafter I will submit the documents in question to that representative against a copy of his enpowering document and give him fair time to go through them. On the contrary, if any link of this chain of proceedings breaks, I'll just go ahead and publish these documents too. > It is hereby demanded that you permanently block access to this web > site. It is further demanded that you delete these materials from the > web site, as your placement of them on this computer violates my client's > rights. As I see it, the fact that the publisher of the works is named and identifiable and the fact that you can take action against him (me in this case) precludes all liability on the part of the service provider, that you in this case assume is me too. There is in my view no ground for any demands to a service provider and certainly not demands such as permanently blocking access to sites, cancelling of accounts and the like. Please be aware that your tactics of massive overkill may turn against you in the long run. You are challenging both principal values and the grounds of business of too many too well renowned and too powerful organizations for your chosen tactics to be wise. You managed to intimidate my ISP because it is a small firm with hardly any resources to engage in legal fights, and you have managed to intimidate Netcom because of the gross costs of litigation in the USA, but consider what you risk the day that you challenge giants such as the national PTTs in Europe, in processes that have to be carried out in Europe. In the long run you are making them the friends and allies of the likes of me, a fact for which I thank you, but which might slightly displease your clients. If you would like to carry this discussion further in a somewhat constructive spirit, you are welcome. The subjects I would like to discuss are normal fair use quote of CoS material (considering now that any previous alleged trade secret status has evaporated) and the end of the spamming of a.r.s. I presume that you in such case would bring the matter of in extenso publications into the agenda. My conditions for such a discussion are very simple: it is to be sincere and open. No secrets, no gags. Tell me if you're interested. ZP -----------------------------end copy-------------------------------- --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth... ----- end usenet message ----- ----- begin usenet message ----- From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Today's developments Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 05:03:43 +0200 Message-ID: <322F948F.7C9A@dodo.pp.se> I was not present at the raid yesterday. Today I learned from the bailiff that the scienos' Swedish lawyer, two American scienos by the names of Warren MacShane and William Heart, as well as a scieno computer technician were allowed by the bailiff to search my home. This is not only irregular, but highly illegal in this country. In the total mess that my apartment is (and was already before the raid), I have had no possibility to check what might be missing. No time either. A journalist interviewed the bailiff on this matter today and the bailiff looked quite shaken. As far as I am concerned, my home may be bugged and has to be deloused. It is very probable that the bailiff's office will have to pay that cost, as well as damages for the violation of my privacy. But that is a later matter. The bailiff had also planned to let the scienos search my hard disks today. But after hearing that I would be present, the scienos didn't show up at the bailiff's office for a meeting at 9 am. They later called and made a new appointment for 10 am. Shortly before 10 they phoned and postponed it for 12 noon. Three peple from the bailiff's office and me waited from 12 to 1.10 pm in vain. The scienos didn't show up and didn't even bother to phone. At the end the bailiff phoned them and arranged to arrange a new meeting tomorrow (or rather this morning Friday). Learning of the bailiff's plans to let the scienos search my files I filed a protest. It resulted in the bailiff changing his mind. Neither the scienos, their lawyers or their computer technicians will be allowed to look at my files. I provided the bailiff with a new copy of the OTs and NOTs on diskette, for the scienos to verify that it is the material they are looking for. After that it is fully possible for an independent computer technician to check for the files on my disks. I also filed a request for the return of my disks. It was immediatelly denied by the bailiff, as expected, whereupon I appealed against his decision. The appeal will be coming up in court shortly. After all this fuss I went to the court to fetch the file on the case. The scienos have filed a whole 300 pages, most of it irrelevant crap in English. Here is the Grady preliminary injunction, the Netcom, Erlich and Klemesrud order of September last, the Lerma denial from January, the Henson preliminary injunction, the Helsigius ruling of August 22, the Spaink et al ruling, a document comparison made by a scieno and some 140+ pages of stripe covered copies of the NOTs, all of it in English. The lawsuit itself is full of inaccuracies, irrelevant data and referrals to inadmissible evidence, but contains also (at least) one direct lie that directly affected or maybe even was the ground of yesterday's preliminary decision. The lie is evident from the file itself and does not need to be proved. Looking at this lawsuit was really a relief. I had given myself some 25-40% chance of winning the case. After looking at the lawsuit I have increased that to the double. The scienos make ample use of procedural tricks in the USA in order to make litigation as complicated and expensive as possible for their victims. Here they will be dancing at the tune of my pipe and I am very good in procedural law. I have already found three formal errors and/or ommissions in the lawsuit and will be filing a demand for correction in the morning. Correction will cost the scienos quite some money; exactly how much is difficult to figure. I will go into details when my demand is filed. There is also a nice Catch 22 situation. I am filing for a stay in the procedure until such time when I get back my hard disks, given the fact that my collected defence is on them and cannot be reconstructed. Now, will the scienos want me to have my disks or will they want me not to have them? It is 04.50 am local time here and at 9 am I will be in court filing motions etc. Considering the time difference to the US I have not disclosed the best part of what will happen in the morning, in order not to give the scienos advance warning. But I promise you that there will be some laughter in ars tomorrow. For the time being I need some sleep... Z --- ----- end usenet message ----- ----- begin usenet message ----- Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: Zenon Panoussis Subject: Aouch!!! That hurt a bit! Message-ID: <32307EC2.29AF@dodo.pp.se> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:42:58 +0000 Alright, here is the filling in: I didn't get any sleep. I said last night that I had something on the doing. It was the printing of the whole bulk of the material, OTs and NOTs. In the morning I made a copy of the 224-page printout and went with both to court. I filed one in as evidence proving that my postings, as shown in the print, are not identical nor even show any similarity to the stripe-covered documents that the CoS claim copyrights to. The instant I filed the thing it became public. By pure coincidence I found that some papers had arrived from the CoS. I asked to see them and was initially refused, but that is a legal impossibility. I got them. They contained three motions: 1. that I should be called to testify as to the whereabouts of the files and printed materials I once had, as well as the names of the people that I may have taken the assistence of to intensify my distribution of "The Material"; 2. that I should be obliged, again through the bailiff, to hand in every document that was covered by Wednesday's decision; 3. that the above decisions, seen the extreme danger of serious damage to the RTC that lies in the slightest of delays, be taken without providing me the previous opportunity to answer; 4. that the "fine" set earlier should be set to a much higher amount and separetely 5. that the so called "Material", the OTs and NOTs be covered by secrecy in view of their confidential nature (the term "trade secret" was elaborately avoided). A quote: "The RTC receives, directly and indirectly, a great economical benefit from The Material." All these very serious motions would have been treated without hearing me, had it not been for the coincidence of my going to court at the right time AND noticing the protocol entries in their computer. As it now turned out, I sat in court frenetically writing statements by hand in the corridor. They were kind enough to find a law book for me. I handed them in at 2 pm and ruling was pronounced at 4.30 pm. Well? Sorry. Motion 1 denied. Motion 2 denied. Motion 3 denied. Motion 4 denied. MOTION 5 DENIED. The interesting details: Motion 5 was denied AFTER my posting advising the net on how to ask for public documents from a Swedish court. All my postings here show up in the file next day, courtesy of the CoS lawyers. They called my instructions a "further flagrant spreading of The Material". Ha. The motion was denied also AFTER I handed in the entire material. The ruling is thus passed with both the fact that the entire material is available at the court, and that people have been encouraged to ask for it. I have two objectives. One is giving the CoS a very good lesson for their general brutality towards scienos and non-scienos alike; today they got another portion of this lesson. My other objective is to defend the net from the censorship it would suffer if measures for breach of law or good taste were to be taken against ISPs, as the CoS always has wanted, instead of against users, which is the only reasonable way. Even on that front this was a good day. Since Monday the CoS have believed that my account was closed following their complaints. I kept a low profile so that my ISP would have the opportunity to tell them the opposite before I did. But since my ISP yesterday went public with their principle decision not to act legislator, police, judge and executioner all at once, I am free to announce it too. The second largest phone company in Sweden and by far largest ISP has made its formal policy to demand court decision or at least something in that direction before closing accounts. The reason? CoS and the resulting problems. Hats off for Tele2 / swip.net. And first prize of foot sharp shooting to the CoS. Z. --- I don't ignore you if I don't answer your e-mail; I'm drowning in things to do, but I will answer eventually.