ET3 Uber, D on 26 Jan 2001 14:03:37 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] RE: nettime-l-digest V1 #183

	I guess usenet is like a dinosaur these days, and court trials over
'guerrilla' type flames to alt.religion.scientology are very old hat indeed,
but the courts cross examination of Nystrom in the middle is worth reading.
Remind to learn about cut and paste in the future.

> ----------
> From:
> .net]
> Reply To:
> Sent: 	Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:49 PM
> To:
> Subject: 	nettime-l-digest V1 #183
> nettime-l-digest      Thursday, January 25 2001      Volume 01 : Number
> 183
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:18:01 -0500
> From: Felix Stalder <>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: the end onf an era: the Internet Hits Ground
> David Garcia wrote:
> >But still the net really did change everything, we just got used to it,
> >that¼s all. This is a peculiarity of human consciousness, collectively we
> >seem to be only able to tolerate just so much freedom. With every really
> big
> >change, after an initial period of extropian intoxication when everything
> >seems possible, humans get scared and seek to normalize and domesticate
> the
> >new landscapes they encounter or create.
> My point was not that nothing has changed and that were are back to where
> we were half a decade ago. The point that I tried to make was that the
> idea
> that the Internet can *replace* existing institutions has been dropped by
> and large. No too long ago, the Internet was discussed in terms of "the
> end
> of the nation state", the "death of the book", "it will kill TV" and many
> other things that were supposed to simply whither away.
> The new economy was a relatively late-comer to this idea, though it came
> to
> it with a vengeance. The belief that the Internet and e-commerce would
> outright replace existing commerce ("why go to your local bookstore if you
> can find all books at") was the bit of "rationale" that fueled
> the dot-com hype.
> Coming late to this replacement-idea, the e-commerce was also late in
> abandoning it. In this sense it stands for a broader shift in your
> understanding of what the Internet is and what it does, and what we should
> do in relation to it.
> The focus now turns from how the Internet will make this or that
> institution obsolete, to how the Internet contributes to transforming them
> (and is in turn transformed by those institutions). Yes, national
> legislation is deeply affected by the global nature of the Internet, but
> this does not mean that it will go away, but that it will seek new forms
> to
> stay relevant (e.g. stronger international coordination).
> Yes, the Internet changed a lot, and will continue to do so beyond what we
> know right now, but its change will come from the away it is integrated
> into social institutions, and what happens during this process, and not
> from it constituting a parallel universe.
> best. Felix
> - --------------------++-----
> Les faits sont faits.
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> #  archive: contact:
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:23:53 +0100
> From: "Frank Hartmann" <>
> Subject: <nettime> CCCameroon / Linux 4 Africa
> [An exiting piece of international cooperation in the age of global
> communication /FH]
> Could you imagine paying two dollars for each email,
> receiving it days later? Or wait one week to get access
> to a computer to write one? But having no cheaper way
> to communicate beyond your city? This was the situation
> in Bamenda/Cameroon that Wendi Losha from a women
> and youth organisation was complaining about at the NGO internet
> fiesta in Vienna in 1999. Now, two years later, the
> echo of her plea "We need computers to communicate"
> has resulted in a rather unique project: The Global Village
> Computer Centre in Bamenda, Cameroon.
> Volunteers from Austria collected old IBM PS/2 machines,
> reactivated them on the base of Linux OS and built an
> email postoffice with a local network allowing substantial
> improvement of communication between Bamenda and the rest of the
> world. They even did a three weeks training workshop
> there.  "It is an example how Civil Society and Open
> Source Software can promote the creation of communi-
> cation infrastructure beyond the digital divide", says
> Franz Nahrada of the Global Village Network, an emerging
> coalition of people supporting local development with
> global communication. "Communication can dramatically
> improve local abilities. We see a trend towards
> this kind of grassroots globalisation, villages in Tyrol
> cooperating with Madagaskar, Nepal and so on. It will
> be exciting to see if the power of Open Source will
> turn this initial experiment into a self-supporting
> cycle of seeding and gaining new contributors."
> Nahrada is convinced that this growth path of
> increasing local autonomy with the help of intellectual
> cooperation will get many more supporters in the
> years to come. "We need to make it a movement
> of construction and cooperation, one that turns every
> village in a living laboratory". The next activity of
> the Global Village Network is "plantingfield", an email
> list about improving agriculture inspired heavily by
> permaculture activists. "We need to invest a lot
> of intellectual energy into what is possible with local
> resources combined with knowledge, tools and the right
> design. It is not about dealing with poverty, it is about
> discovering  a potential of abundance".
> Information:
> Vum - Verein zur Unterstützung von Menschen
> previous projects in Togo and Benin
> a decription of the training in german at
> Global Village Network
> to get more information or to join the network write to:
> a technical description of the email postoffice will be
> available on
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> #  archive: contact:
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:22:14 +0100
> From: Karin Spaink <>
> Subject: <nettime> Stockholm, day 3
>      [orig not To: <>]
> Magnusson becomes helpful
> Stockholm, Monday January 22 2001
> WHEN ZENON AND I ENTER the hall, Magnusson's aide
> is the first person that we meet. While he usually
> ignores us, he now makes a show of flashing me a
> big grin. He must have read my previous report, I
> gather, and is doing his best to disprove my
> published assessment that he is a Scientologist.
> As I will soon discover, I am only partially
> right. There is a bit more to this smile.
> 9:30
> THE COURT RESUMES. Magnusson starts by protesting
> my presence during last Friday's closed door
> sessions. I *wrote* about these closed-door
> sessions, he informs the court, and published my
> notes to alt.religion.scientology. Thus, I broke
> the confidentiality that RTC tried to maintain
> with such difficulty, and apart from that, my
> reports constitute contempt of and defiance to the
> court that ordered me to maintain secrecy. Hence,
> Magnusson wants me out in all future closed
> sessions (such as today's, when Birgitta
> Alexandersson, the notary public, will be heard).
> Magnusson's aide, who flashed me a huge smile only
> minutes ago, gets up and hands copies of my court
> reports as found on DejaNews to the court and to
> Zenon. Zenon replies that secrecy is only limited
> to actual parts of the scriptures discovered
> *within* these closed-door sessions, not to
> anything else, and I did not reveal any of that.
> Magnusson sustains his protest. Zenon asks him to
> what passages exactly he and RTC object. One of
> them turns out to be the five-liner that Magnusson
> prevented Zenon from uttering Friday afternoon and
> which I later quoted as a planned part of Zenon's
> plea, but most of all Magnusson protests the
> defiance that he discerns in the closing sentence
> of that paragraph: "That's secrecy for you."
> Aren't I ridiculing the court here? Zenon explains
> that this certainly was not information that I
> learned in a closed session: Magnusson did not
> allow Zenon to utter these lines and I got them at
> home, from Zenon himself, from his notes. And what
> does Magnusson mean by 'contempt'? I simply
> pointed out the consequences of Magnusson's own
> stance: if Magnusson will not allow Zenon to say
> something while they are discussing evidence and
> grounds, he will bring up that same issue in his
> plea - perhaps even with more vehemence.
> It slowly dawns upon me that Magnusson has
> actually been demanding that I be thrown out of
> the court room completely, even when the doors are
> *not* closed and no secrecy is required. I must no
> longer be allowed to be here. I have shown gross
> contempt of court, and have proven myself to be
> utterly unsuitable and unworthy.
> The court tackles the question in slices. They are
> not sure whether my use of the term "body thetan"
> in the previous report is justified. There is
> indeed some secrecy to be maintained, isn't there?
> Zenon argues that far before he ever got into a
> dispute with Scientology in 1996, that word was
> already being used by other people in public
> discussions about Scientology. (Actually, he could
> have informed the court that there even is a Dutch
> Body Thetan Society, and that the UK can boast an
> Association to Prevent Cruelty Against Body
> Thetans.) The court can't very well prohibit us
> from using *words* from the scriptures, can they?
> If it did, half the English vocabulary would be
> covered by secrecy. As for Magnusson's wish that I
> be dismissed: Zenon needs me; while he is
> interrogating people he can't make notes, and he
> has no other assistance than mine.
> The court adjourns. They need to reach a formal
> decision on Magnusson's request.
> 9:50
> DURING THE BREAK, Zenon and I discuss the
> consequences of a negative decision. "I *need* to
> have somebody who can make notes and who can shove
> information at me," Zenon says. "If the court
> refuses you any further entrance, I am afraid that
> I must ask the court to adjourn and reschedule the
> whole case. Fuck, I can't do this totally by
> myself, can I?"
> Then again, we understand why Magnusson is doing
> this. First of all, McShane suddenly finds a
> rather detailed transcript of his testimony on the
> net - and as we all know, transcripts such as
> these are often terribly useful in other people's
> court cases. McShane would rather not have them
> around, especially not where it concerns a closed
> session. He'd rather not be held accountable
> elsewhere for what he is saying here. Secondly,
> there is probably an element of revenge involved.
> So there I was, not a party in this court case at
> all, yet allowed to see the OTs and NOTs; probably
> I am the second non-Scientologist, non-lawyer in
> the position to officially lay their eyes upon
> Scientology's scriptures them - Zenon being the
> first. And thirdly, Magnusson might hope to hamper
> or cripple Zenon. He is simply being
> pusillanimous.
> We wait for twenty-five minutes for the court to
> announce its decision. Judging by the amount of
> time that it takes, and by the no-nonsense
> behaviour of this court, we assume that the court
> is carefully reading my two reports and weighing
> my words.
> It's a rather weird thought that by now *three* of
> my articles have made it into this court case: my
> summary of OT3 has been part of the case for a few
> years already (in attachment 126), and by now two
> new pieces have been officially filed.
> 10:15
> THE COURT RESUMES. We are called in to hear their
> decision. Although I walked a tight line, the
> court states, they found me neither incapable nor
> unsuitable to be Zenon's biträde. There was no
> contempt of court. I can stay.
> I breathe relief. Zenon will not be forced to ask
> to reschedule. Moreover, while I was vehemently
> hoping that the court would come across my reports
> - - they do after all not only comment upon
> McShane's glitches (oh, how I now wish that I had
> incorporated all previous known and established
> security breaches concerning the OTs in my last
> report; it would have been *so* edifying), they
> also present a more social, subjective point of
> entry than any legal assessment can provide one
> with - Magnusson has dutifully fulfilled that task
> for me and has *himself* provided the court with
> my reports. Thank you, Mr Magnusson; you were most
> kind.
> Then again, I'm quite sure that Magnusson will put
> the fee for the copies of my a.r.s. reports on
> Zenon's legal bill.
> 10:18 - A procedural discussion starts.
> Zenon would like to have the deposition of Ms
> Alexandersson, the notary public who compared
> Zenon's postings and his webpage to RTC's
> originals in an open session: he assumes that the
> procedure of her comparison will be discussed, not
> the actual contents of the material. The court
> needs to make another decision. It takes them ten
> minutes.
> 10:30 - The court announce their decision: Ms
> Alexandersson's testimony will be partly open, and
> partly under secrecy, just like McShane's
> testimony.
> 10:33 - Birgitta Alexandersson's deposition
> MS ALEXANDERSSON SEATS herself. She is reminded -
> like McShane was previously - that she is still
> under oath. She starts by explaining that she is
> not working as a notary public anymore, and is by
> now living abroad.
> M: What method did you employ to make the
> comparison?
> BA: 3 steps. We - I and my aide, who is a lawyer -
> sat down with the material I got the originals
> from the church, both OT2 and OT3 and NOTs. We
> compared those to attachment 30, 37, and 126, the
> diskettes from the bailiff, the material from
> Panoussis' hard disk and the documents handed in
> to the various authorities. With respect to
> attachment 126 [the monkey OTs], I made a ransom
> selection and compared those to the originals.
> They were exact copies.
> M: How did you get the originals?
> BA: A church official brought them to my office.
> 10:38 - Start of closed session
> Zenon comments that Alexandersson's aide stays in
> the court room. Alexandersson says that he helped
> her to make the comparison and that he knows her
> notes. Zenon asks why he should be allowed to stay
> during this closed session. Can't Alexandersson
> read from her notes by herself? Does she need help
> or a souffleur?
> The court has a small discussion amongst
> themselves. In the meanwhile Alexandersson gets
> quite annoyed and says that she doesn't care if
> her aide leaves, so the aide does so before the
> court reaches a decision. Magnusson tries to
> retaliate by reminding the court that *I* am here
> and am making notes. The court assures Magnusson
> that I am still bound by secrecy.
> Alexandersson produces her notes and from those,
> she reads what differences and similarities she
> assessed existed between Zenon's OT2, OT3 and NOTs
> and the originals that RTC supplied her with. It
> takes an hour and a half to do so.
> 12:17 - 13:15 - Lunch break.
> Zenon questions Alexandersson. He wishes to know
> how much of OT2 and OT3 was *not* quoted in the
> documents that he posted or filed. Alexandersson
> goes through her notes, but can't find the answer
> in them; she exclaims that these notes are old and
> that she doesn't remember. She only has her notes
> to go by. Zenon insists, the answer is quite
> important to him; Alexandersson gets quite
> irritated: she has no knowledge apart from what is
> comprised in her notes, and she doesn't see why
> Zenon insists. I, however, understand why he does
> so: Zenon is trying to show that Alexandersson
> only compared texts that match and is not telling
> or does not know how much of the original text was
> not at all in Zenon's copies. This is important
> with regard to the right to quote. Alexandersson
> finally states that she received the full binders
> from RTC, the same ones that the court has seen.
> Taking this into consideration, her account of how
> big parts were copied doesn't seem to match the
> length of the respective materials. End of closed
> session.
> Zenon wants to know how Alexandersson made her
> selection of the works within attachment 126 that
> she then compared to RTC's original NOTs pack. Did
> she make a *random* selection? Yes. No. She
> started at the top of Attachment 126 and then
> compared each individual Monkey NOT to the NOTs
> Pack. Since by then she was well acquainted with
> the originals, she could decide rather quickly
> which works within Attachment 126 was infringing
> and which one wasn't. No, she didn't go through
> the whole of Attachment 126; it contained 200
> individual texts, she was dead tired and she had
> agreed with Magnusson that she would hand in her
> assessment the next morning. Yes, she started at
> the top and ignored the ones that were fakes. Yes,
> that is how she assessed that the seven works that
> she compared were originals. No, the ones that she
> threw aside she didn't count. No, she doesn't
> remember, it's too long ago. Yes, she worked her
> way from the top down.
> In the hearings of 1998, Alexandersson stated
> twice under oath that she had made a random
> selection from within attachment 126 and that
> *each* of those randomly selected works that she
> compared to he originals, was infringing.
> According to the investigation protocol she said
> the same to the prosecutor in the penal
> investigation case against Zenon. Now she says
> that she did *not* select randomly, that
> everything that at first glance did not appear
> infringing was cast aside, and that she defined
> the *result* of her selection to be her random
> selection. The court frowns. Alexandersson denies
> that she ever stated that she made a random
> selection. The court secretary intervenes:
> Alexandersson *has* stated that.
> Zenon asks for Alexandersson's testimony in
> primary court to be re-heard from the tapes.
> 13:55 - Mikael Nyström's testimony.
> NYSTRÖM IS THE internet and computer expert who in
> primary court stated under oath that a series of
> NOTs postings to a.r.s. - dated May 2, 1996,
> postings that Zenon disputes he ever made - could
> not, or could almost not have been falsified.
> Meanwhile, it has been proven that such a message
> *can* be falsified: a few weeks ago a message was
> posted to a.r.s. having the exact same headers
> (host name, NTTP-posting host, NTTP-posting user,
> user, sender, what have you; all from Zenon's old
> account which has long been closed) and
> that message was purportedly written by Mikael
> Nyström.
> Zenon questions Nyström.
> Z: can you explain to the court how one identifies
> a Usenet message?
> N: By the IP address (you check whether it
> exists), the message ID, the NNTP posting host,
> NNTP posting user, the news server used. You can
> falsify a few things but not all.
> Z: Can you falsify the sender's address?
> N: Yes.
> Z: The message ID?
> N: That is more difficult, but not impossible. The
> message ID in part serves as a guarantee for
> authenticity: it is unique for each message.
> Z: Where is such a message ID created?
> N: That depends upon the operating system used,
> and upon the program used. Almost always the
> message-ID is created by the server.
> Z: Do you know if Netscape generates a message ID?
> N: I'm not sure with Netscape, but in any case the
> news server checks the message ID and might modify
> it.
> Z: Which headers are generated from within
> Netscape, that is: at the client side?
> N: The sender name and e-mail address.
> Z: What about NNTP posting user and NTTP posting
> host?
> N: These are always generated by the server. Even
> if the client would add them to a message, the
> server would strip them off and re-generate them.
> Z: Can you falsify NNTP posting user and NTTP
> posting host?
> N: There is some room for falsification, but not
> much.
> Z: So how do you tell where a message come from?
> N: By looking at the dial-up and at the posting
> host, the IP address for the computer, that is:
> the name for the computer to which you are
> connected and via which you post.
> Z: What does 'dial-up' and 'posting-user' mean?
> N: It tells you which particular user is logged in
> at this particular moment from which particular
> dial-up.
> Z: If you dial in and post to a newsgroup, are
> your actions then logged, under normal
> circumstances?
> N: Yes, certainly when you pay per minute of usage
> at your provider. Paid providers do extensive
> logging. With free providers, it's a tad
> different.
> Z: How normal is logging for normal providers?
> N: It is even expected of them. When a client for
> instance abuses the net you must be able to trace
> him.
> Z: So you can look at these logs and then find out
> who it was?
> N: Yes.
> Z: Let's look more closely at this particular
> message. Can you tell from where it was posted?
> N: Yes, by looking at the path, the posting host,
> the news server.
> Z: The path lists all the computers through which
> this message passed?
> N: Yes. Each message passes lots of machines; and
> here you can see which ones. At news servers, a
> replication process takes place: news servers
> check what they have and what they miss, and then
> exchange on a peer-to-peer basis with one another
> in order to get a full feed. That is where the
> message IDs comes in, these are used to check what
> you have and what you have not.
> Z: So, is it correct to say that from this path
> you can tell ...
> N: Yes, you can see which way it travelled.
> Z: And the dial-up?
> N: You can tell that he's from e.g. Tele2 and
> dialed in.
> Z: Within which limits can you be certain about
> that?
> N: To quite some degree.
> Z: [shows Nyström the falsified message]
> N: This one says that it came from Swipnet. We
> *know* that it is false, the account does no
> longer exist.
> Z: But if you had no clue about its origin and
> were just presented with this message, would you
> still say...
> N: I can't be sure. We know that this one is
> falsified.
> Z: How can you falsify a news message?
> N: Usually, this is done by injecting it into a
> news server.
> Chair: How do you do that?
> N: You contact a news server directly, and you
> fake a sender and a message ID.
> Z: How do you recognise a faked message?
> N: You look at the sender, at the message ID and
> check whether that is plausible, then at the
> posting host and user, and you look at the path
> and check whether it is reasonable.
> Z: As a system administrator, you can log in
> everywhere, can't you, and can't you inject any
> message then?
> N: Well, if you are a system administrator,
> basically, you sit with your hands in the cookie
> jar.
> Z: You spoke about news servers pooling their
> messages and exchanging them. How many news
> servers are there?
> N: Tens of thousands.
> Z: If you inject a message in any of them, will
> that message circulate normally?
> N: More or less.
> Z: So sysadmins have full possibility to falsify
> messages?
> N: Yes.
> Z: In tingsrätt you said that you were 99% sure
> that this message could not have been falsified.
> Now you say that it *is* possible.
> N: Erm, it is not impossible.
> Z: Can a system administrator inject a Usenet
> message via his own news server?
> N: Yes
> Z: Can an individual do it?
> N: Yes.
> Z: And an organisation?
> N: Yes.
> Chair: So it is technically possible?
> N: Yes. It *can* be done. However, the information
> about how it can be done is now more readily
> available than it was in 1996. If the court would
> search the net, I am sure that within five
> minutes, they would find a course on the net
> teaching them "How to make a fake posting".
> Z: How can you *ensure* that a posting is real?
> N: By checking the logs that the provider keeps,
> by checking the telephone numbers that were used
> for dial-up, by checking who was logged in from
> where. You would need to have all log files.
> Z: Having Tele2's logs would give you a good
> chance of proving this?
> N: Sure. I would first of all check the dial-up
> and then see from which telephone line the user
> phoned in.
> Z: Can you fake *that*?
> N: That is very, very difficult. You need to
> manipulate a really big system, but perhaps when
> you have lots of money...
> 15:00 done. Magnusson's turn.
> M: At your Tingsrätt deposition, you said that you
> had informed yourself about the possibilities to
> make false postings.
> N: I spoke with experts and with Tele2.
> M: Can you manipulate posting host and posting
> user?
> N: Sitting at home it is more complicated, but it
> can be done.
> M: And you say that this is easier for a sysadmin
> to do?
> N: Yes, the discussions that I had show that it is
> possible.
> M: Does a firewall make such things more easy?
> N: A firewall is meant to bar unwanted requests.
> It blocks them. We have a few attacks each day on
> our own systems.
> M: Can you fake a posting host or posting user via
> a firewall?
> N: No, you must manipulate them at the server. The
> firewall is just a guarantee that things don't get
> in.
> M: Was it easy in 1996 to fake the posting host?
> N: The information on how they to do that was less
> generally available.
> M: [speaks about moving copies from the one place
> to the other; cached copies etc; previously, in
> primary court, Magnusson had tried to stamp each
> virtual copy that Zenon's computer created as a
> separate instance of infringement]
> N: That's just a technical thing. When you have a
> file on a medium and you want to move it, you
> create a copy first and then delete the original.
> You *must* always first copy a file when you move
> it, even if both actions are accomplished with one
> single command.
> M: Newsgroups, can you explain what they are and
> compare them to homepages?
> N: A website is fixed in one place, you copy your
> files directly to that. Newsgroups get their
> information from many sources, and the messages
> jump from server to server to server.
> M: If I want to copy text from my computer to a
> newsgroup?
> N: [explains how to do that] 
> M: Thus, many virtual copies are made of my
> posting?
> N: That is the nature of newsgroups. The Usenet
> system is not located in one place, it is copied
> around.
> M: How many copies exactly are made of news
> postings?
> N: That depends on how popular a newsgroup is and
> how often a particular message is requested. They
> just go to a news server and get replicated from
> there.
> Zenon's turn again. From now on, Magnusson and
> Zenon each pose a few question to the witness.
> It's almost like a bidding contest.
> Zenon: Do you know whether Tele2 demanded
> authentication on the news server in 1996?
> N: I don't think that they did.
> Zenon: As for copies when files are moved: would
> you say that it is impossible to do without them,
> that the technical process demands them?
> N: Yes.
> Magnusson: In primary court, you said that you
> were 99% sure that it was not possible to falsify
> a newsgroup message. On what did you base this
> statement?
> N: On talks, discussions, my general knowledge.
> Zenon: Have you ever heard of the spamming of
> newsgroups?
> N: Yes.
> Z: In May 1996, there was a whole flood of false
> postings to a.r.s. Do you know that?
> N: I know about spam attacks on newsgroups, but I
> do not know about this one.
> 15:45 - End of Nyström's deposition.
> The remaining 45 minutes of today's session are
> taken up by procedural matters: evidence is listed
> and compared, and tomorrow's schedule is decided.
> ***
> ZENON AND I LEAVE court rather happily. Today's
> session went well: we have caught Alexandersson
> with errors, and Nyström by now has admitted that
> it is not at all as difficult to fake a posting as
> he previously stated. Also, we note that Magnusson
> seems increasingly nervous. Today, we saw him
> smoking outside. He has never done so before.
> When we have our cigarette just at the court's
> door, a couple approaches us. The man, fifty-ish,
> asks who we are. He is looking for Zenon
> Panoussis. You see, he explains, his grandson has
> joined Scientology and now he is looking for
> information about them, and then his lover - he
> points at the young blonde who is accompanying him
> - - found out about this court case on the net, and
> since he doesn't know anybody who is familiar with
> Scientology, he thought that he had better come to
> court and ask us to impart our knowledge.
> After a few minutes we decide to go to a café to
> talk.
> Once there, we launch upon a one-hour explanation
> about Scientology, while warning the couple that
> our information is coloured and that they should
> check for themselves. They are increasingly
> unsettled at what we tell them. All your money?
> Space Opera? Reincarnation? Discipline?
> Intelligence division? Scientology has been
> convicted for theft, fraud, infiltration?
> Five minutes after we entered, a guy comes in and
> takes the table next to us. He orders food and a
> glass of water and consistently stares at the
> television at the other end of the café. It is
> right behind us. He stares over our heads and our
> conversation seems to totally evade him.
> I get uncomfortable. We *are* after all discussing
> rather weird and outrageous matters in a loud
> voice, and I know that if I had been sitting next
> to a table where such a conversation would be
> conducted, I would listen in a bit, and that my
> reaction would be visible on my face. Not this
> guy. He doesn't bat an eye. Actually, he seems
> *so* impervious to our conversation that it
> becomes suspicious.
> I have the feeling that the guy is a Scientology
> tail.
> So does Zenon, as it turns out. The moment the guy
> gets up to have a leak, Zenon brings him up. And
> once he says so, the young woman says she has been
> wondering about his behaviour as well. We decide
> that once we all leave the café, Zenon and I will
> dash into a taxi and that the couple will keep an
> open eye. They might be tailed now as well.
> THE NEXT DAY, after court is done and we leave the
> building, the man with the grandson in Scientology
> is waiting for us. He wants to tell us that not
> only did he go to the local Scientology org - to
> inform himself, as we advised him to do, and to
> get the other side of the story - but most of all
> that when he was about to enter the Org, he saw
> the guy who had been sitting next to us in the
> café exit the Scientology building.
> We *are* being tailed.
> Karin Spaink
> Stockholm, January 24 2001
> - - K -
> - -- 
> [Religion] is not merely the opium of the masses,
> it is the cyanide.
>   - Tom Robbins: Skinny Legs and All
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> #  archive: contact:
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:54:15 +0100
> From: Karin Spaink <>
> Subject: <nettime> Stockholm, day 4
> [previous reports are available at ]
> Children's games
> Stockholm, Tuesday January 23 2001
> 9:30
> ZENON HAS NEW EVIDENCE and presents it to the court; it is a result of my
> transcript of McShane's testimony as posted to the internet. Zenon got an
> e-mail from somebody [thank you! you know who you are] who claims that the
> NOTs are *also* studied privately and that more people have read the NOTs
> than McShane claimed in his deposition. The actual evidence is on its way
> and will be presented to court as soon as DHL allows it: an issue of
> Source Magazine and a copy of International Scientology News.
> 9:45 - First Tingsrätt tape.
> WE HEAR THE 1988 tape of the deposition in primary court of Thomas Small.
> The dots represent the questions posed to him. And as we will hear, Small
> does indeed *not* explain that he is at the time of this deposition
> actively employed as RTC's attorney. When answering what he does for a
> living, he replies by delineating his educational background and *only*
> speaks about his work for RTC as if it were a thing from the past. That
> makes him rather dishonest: he is far less impartial than he purported to
> be. He has not told the court that he is giving a testimony about his
> *boss*.
> "I am a patent lawyer and intellectual property lawyer [explains about his
> education]. ... I compiled the agreement [between CST and RTC] some time
> before it was signed. ... Yes. ... I was at the time representing
> primarily
> RTC and to some extent the Trustee as well, because they were co-operating
> as parties. I attempted to put their wishes on paper in the document. ...
> Yes. ... This document was designed to give all rights to the Advanced
> Technology Scientology material outside the US to RTC. ... These were
> rights that were held by the Trustee as the successor of L. Ron Hubbard.
> ...
> That includes the OTs and NOTs, those are part of the Advanced Technology.
> ... The grant was intended to transfer all intellectual property.
> Basically, it consists of two parts. One part is the confidentiality of
> the documents and the other is the [couldn't hear that, but I assume he
> refers to the license] ... The protection of this confidential information
> is generally ruled by the contract. The license gives the right to use and
> make copies of the material. There are specific terms to it, which I will
> explain later. ... There's a specific provision in the agreement that RTC
> would be the enforcer and protector of these rights and, if necessary,
> enter into litigation to protect these rights. ... This was in RTC's name.
> They were granted the exclusive right to use the Advanced Technology and
> they were authorised to sue in their own name. CST can also sue if the
> need to do so arises. ... [Lots of leafing through papers is audible.] ...
> No, there were none other that I know of; at the bottom of the previous
> page it says that the Estate has the rights to pull [inaudible] and these
> serve as directions as to, as to the policy of the ecclesiastic use of the
> materials. ... This is a religious document between parties who are the
> leaders of a religious group and there's a number of scriptural
> limitations on how these materials can be used; confidential limitations,
> copyright limitations, and ecclesiastic limitations, explaining how RTC as
> the protector of these materials should protect them. ... No. ... Yes. ...
> The
> rights remain the same. The role of the trustees simply passed to CST when
> CST became qualified to possess these rights."
> Zenon's turn: "Are you saying that RTC and CST were co-operating partners
> in this?"
> Small: "They were co-operating although CST had at that time not yet come
> directly into [xxx]. ... The interests of CST and RTC were the same, yes.
> ... CST did then not yet have a direct interest in the subject matter of
> the agreement; that was the Trustee at the time. ... Whether RTC and the
> Estate had opposing any interest at that time? The answer is no, they had
> not. ... It was an exclusive license, it was a transfer of copyrights, not
> to titles, but the right to [tape change] ... The right to use and to
> authorise others to use were covered by the exclusive license, the
> copyright remains with the Trustee as the license holder. ... First,
> because that was the desire of the partners, there was no intent to
> transfer copyrights to RTC or to anybody else. L. Ron Hubbard very
> carefully maintained personal rights to his own copyrights and Mr Hubbard
> made provisions that the rights went to CST and they were entitled to hold
> the rights into perpetuity. ... The limitations as I intended to state are
> religious in nature: the Scientology scriptures state that this is the way
> they the Advanced Technology is to be used, after all it's Mr Hubbard's
> writings, and it is his wishes that guide the parties."
> Zenon asks why the contract - unlike most contracts - does not deal with
> possible conflicts between the contract partners or between them and third
> parties, and why RTC's right to sue third parties in its own name is not
> regulated.
> Small: "Well, that right accompanies exclusive licenses as a matter of law
> in the US, it wasn't necessary to say any more in the license then it now
> states. ... ... That's right. ... This contract was made in the US between
> parties in the US, and according to my understanding any conflict arising
> from the contract would be covered by and subject to US law."
> Zenon: "But the contract states explicitly that is only applies to the use
> of the copyrights outside the US; in countries with their own law, that
> might differ. Why was it not explicitly stipulated that the RTC has the
> right to sue in its own name?"
> Small: "I suppose that it would be possible that there is a country where
> RTC would not have the right to bring suit as an exclusive licensee, and
> it is against that eventuality that, that in that case CST could do so if
> it became necessary. ... I also add that this is not just a copyright
> agreement but also a confidentiality agreement and the licensee of
> confidential information might not automatically have the right to sue,
> and therefore its important for CST to have this right as a backup right
> as well.."
> 10:18 - End tape. Next one: Thomas Vorm's testimony in Tingsrätt.
> Vorm was giving his testimony via the telephone. The line is bad.
> Magnusson asks the questions.
> M: How long have you held this position?
> Vorm: "Since October 1988. My main task is to oversee the work done by
> RTC. I archive all [inaudible] to preserve the Scientology religion,
> including the Advanced Technology."
> M: [About the copyright of OT2, OT3 and NOTs and the respective roles of
> RTC and CST with regard to these copyrights]
> Vorm: "Since 1988, RTC is the protector of the copyrights. Mr Hubbard's
> estate was transferred to CST, and RTC brings litigation in case of
> infringement."
> M: Could you briefly describe CST's position when it comes to the fact
> that the license has been given to RTC?
> Vorm: "In 1993, after the copyrights were turned over, [inaudible]"
> M: Which rights?
> Vorm: "RTC had three basic rights. To authorise Scientology organisations
> to use the Advanced Technology and the right to distribute copies to these
> organisations; the exclusive right to protect and enforce these
> copyrights; and also to [inaudible]."
> M: Does this also mean, according to CST, that RTC can also start
> litigation or take judicial procedures in its own name?
> Vorm: "I'm not sure that I understand your question."
> M: According to CST, may RTC take legal action according to this license
> agreement when it comes to protect this copyrights?
> Vorm: "Yes and yes."
> M: In RTC's own name?
> Vorm: "Yes."
> M: According to the opinion of CST, are there any remaining copyrights to
> this material that are not included in the license agreement and that are
> not given to RTC?
> Vorm: "No, there are not."
> M: Could this mean that CST could take any measures if RTC does not fulfil
> its obligations?
> Vorm: "Yes."
> Zenon's turn.
> Zenon: "Why did CST sue Spaink in Holland, if RTC takes care of this?"
> Vorm: "-- eh, I don't understand the question."
> Magnusson interrupts. Thomas Vorm is not a lawyer and he objects to the
> question being asked.
> Zenon: "If RTC is supposed to sue in its own name and that is sufficient,
> why did CST sue Karin Spaink and twenty-two Internet providers in Holland
> in 1995?"
> Vorm: "I cannot say."
> Zenon: "No further questions."
> 10:30 - End tape. Break.
> 10:51 - Third tape: the bailiff in Tingsrätt.
> THE BAILIFF WAS responsible for the confiscation and searching of Zenon's
> data, but did not carry out the search personally. She explains the method
> that was employed, as described in her protocol. The bailiff searched
> Zenon's data on his hard disk, floppies and zip drives, but was only able
> to do so partially, because of encryption. The words that she was looking
> for as per RTC's instructions, were the following: OT, NOT, NED, BT, Body
> Thetan, vulcano, volcano, GPM, Ward, Vorlon. Zenon handed her a floppy
> with the texts that were affected by the court's decision, which helped
> her to retrieve some material from his hard disk and copy it to diskette.
> A month later Zenon asked for a copy of the floppy he had handed in, and
> then the bailiff confiscated it. That was the same floppy that had been in
> the bailiff's possession all along, but it had not been formally
> confiscated before.
> 11:00 - Fourth and last tape: Birgitta Alexandersson, notary public. Since
> the original testimony was taped behind closed doors, part of the audience
> is now asked to leave.
> Tape: Zenon asks how she selected the 'works' within attachment 126 that
> she then proceeded to compare to RTC's originals of OT2, OT3 and the NED
> for OTs Pack (as she insists on calling the NOTs). She claims that she has
> made a random selection.
> The court listens to that statement. Then the tape is rewound and
> fast-forwarded to another section of Alexandersson's testimony, in which
> she again explains the procedure that she employed. And indeed again
> Alexandersson claims that she made a random selection.
> This is totally at odds with her testimony of yesterday: there, she
> claimed that she started at the top of the stack of papers, and "since she
> knew the material so well by then", she could "easily recognise what was
> infringing".
> 11:15 - End of tapes.
> Discussion about damages and legal costs. Magnusson again enumerates the
> instances in which Zenon infringed upon RTC's rights and states the
> grounds for and the amount of damages that RTC claims:
> - - Payment for usage:  10,000 SEK
>   the standard tariff being, according to the
>   tariff of the Swedish Writer's Guild, 160,000
>   SEK. In other words: RTC is being mild here. - Tort for material damage:
> 10,000 SEK
>   which includes their economical damage, money
>   spent on guarding the material, loss of
>   customers, market shares and license proceeds. - Immaterial damages:  
> 5,000 SEK
>   loss of good name, hurt feelings etc.
> Apart from that, RTC demands the destruction of any secret and
> confidential material that Zenon has in his possession, has published or
> has distributed.
> 11:30 - Lunch break
> 13:15 - Court resumes.
> ZENON STATES HIS OBJECTIONS to the need to pay damages. One of his grounds
> is freedom of speech and freedom of religion, based on the European
> convention on human rights. Scientology is a cult that has been criminally
> convicted in many Western countries, he explains; only next month a penal
> case in Madrid will start in which Heber Jentzsch, the president of
> Scientology, is one of the defendants.
> In order to explain and assess what Scientology stands for, it is
> necessary to have access to their material. Besides, this is a consumer's
> right worthy to defend: you need to be able to understand what you get
> into and what you pay for before you join *any* group.
> The Chair warns Zenon that he is diverting from the subject of damages.
> Zenon explains that there is a strong need for an open debate about
> Scientology and its beliefs, and that this is sufficient reason to publish
> their texts. Thus, damages should be waived under the provisions of the
> convention.
> Part of Scientology's claims should be rejected because Zenon is not
> responsible for them. They hold him accountable for infringements that he
> has not at all perpetrated, as for instance copies of OTs and NOTs made by
> the courts, not by him. Part of the damage caused, as for instance loss of
> revenue, is due to the bad quality of Hubbard's writing and not to Zenon's
> actions as such. Furthermore, an author's right to compensation for
> immaterial damage, i.e. his hurt feelings, is personal to him and does not
> follow the copyrights. As for the legal fees that RTC demands (8 million
> SEK) and what the primary court ruled that Zenon had to pay (1,2 million
> SEK), there are important issues to be taken into account, that is, to be
> subtracted from the bill. He will go into those later.
> Regarding the injunction and the destruction order that RTC wishes to
> impose upon him: not only does he dispute them, he also thinks they should
> be specified to particular objects and to particular texts, and be limited
> to apply only within Sweden. As things are now, the injunction is far too
> wide and neither limited in scope nor in time.
> Destruction orders must always be fully specified. Besides, Swedish
> rulings can be enforced in the Netherlands. As things stand now, making a
> copy of the scriptures for personal use is infringement in Sweden but not
> in the Netherlands, where the courts have explicitly ruled that the
> scriptures are published material. If the Swedish ruling is not limited to
> apply within Sweden only, the Swedish court would be imposing its ruling
> on another country against the rulings of the courts of that country. In a
> country where a ruling is only enforced, it cannot be appealed.
> 13:50
> A MORE DETAILED discussion of the legal fees as presented to the primary
> court is conducted.
> Magnusson right now drops two items from the bill: Bill Hart's legal fees
> and his travelling costs for the primary case: 1,351,350 SEK, and 211,642
> SEK respectively. RTC's bill for legal fees has just been reduced from 8
> million SEK to 6,5 million SEK.
> Zenon disputes various items on Magusson's bill:
> - - The legal fees: the political lobbying and the guarding of the OTs and
> NOTs in parliament are on the legal bill. This is not correct; only what
> is spent *within* a case itself can be charged in the case.
> - - RTC is charging fees for costs brought about by *other* cases,
> lawsuits
> that branched off this one. You can't put those on *this* bill: for
> instance, when RTC sued the court demanding secrecy, they can't expect
> Zenon to foot the bill for that. It is simply not part of this case.
> - - The legal bill is terribly vague where it comes to specifications.
> None
> of the costs on the bill can be checked.
> - - The charges are unreasonable, and Magnusson's fee is outrageous. If
> you
> compare what he demands or states that he costs with what Ms.
> Calissendorff, who for some time acted as Zenon's lawyer, was awarded by
> the court, you can't but cringe.
> - - The legal bill is unduly burdened by unnecessary actions (from
> McShane's
> affidavit and the translation thereof, to translations of a multitude of
> US rulings and a flood of legal opinions offered; from travelling and any
> number of hours worked for lawyers that didn't actually participate in the
> case; Small's travelling expenses while he could easily have testified by
> telephone, just like Vorm did; the amount of copies made and the price per
> copy calculated; the handing in of evidence to prove things that Zenon
> never questioned or denied; the consistent use of couriers instead of
> faxes; the aide who has been sitting next to Magnusson for a week while
> doing nothing much more than leafing through papers and occasionally
> passing a note on to Magnusson. And let's not forget the ten binder set
> that Magnusson presented everybody with at the beginning of this case:
> there was nothing new in it, Magnusson just 're-ordered' his evidence, and
> surely Z will be expected to pay for that as well.
> In short, RTC and Magnusson have deliberately increased their costs and
> are now pushing that bill unto Zenon. Equality of arms (viz. the European
> Convention of Human Rights) is surely applicable in this aspect. In the
> absence of a reasonable bill, RTC's legal costs must be reasonably
> assessed *and* brought down proportionally according to what RTC has lost.
> 14:00
> MAGNUSSON'S REPLY. It is obvious that Panoussis has done everything he
> could to increase RTC's costs. On alt.religion.scientology, Zenon has in
> various postings claimed that RTC, by imposing such a enormous sum upon
> him, has in fact granted him immunity from future claims. And he is
> actually challenging RTC in that posting - as he has done in other
> postings - to sue him, while alternatively threatening to post more of
> RTC's material.
> Zenon's claim that equality of arms should be taken into account is
> ridiculous. Actually, it amounts to discrimination: it means that the
> strongest party can't spend more than the weaker party can afford.
> Zenon replies that Magnusson's last remark about strong and weak parties
> is of course nonsense. The strong party can spend whatever it wants; the
> only question at stake is whether it can demand that the weaker party will
> afterwards *bear* all these costs. He will save his other arguments for
> his plea.
> 14:30 - Break.
> 14:50 - Court resumes.
> MAGNUSSON IS GOING TO deposit McShane again. Zenon informs the court that
> he would like to pose additional questions as well, and explains on what
> subject: contrary to what he stated, there appears to be a part of NOTs
> that people *do* study. Apart from that, it would appear from
> Scientology's own publications that there are much more than just 325
> Scientology members who have studied the NOTs, as McShane claimed: some
> 120 more at least. Does this evidence come from Scientology itself, the
> Chair asks? Yes, Zenon explains, it comes from Scientology's own
> publications: Source Magazine and International Scientology News, and
> copies of those magazines arrive tomorrow. Zenon will provide Magnusson
> with copies immediately.
> Magnusson claims that this is not *at all* relevant, and besides, why are
> we getting this at the latest moment imaginable?
> Short discussion between Chair and Zenon. Zenon explains that NOTs are
> courses with 'fixed donations' as well. The Chair wants to know since
> when. It has always been like this, says Zenon.
> 15:05 - Deposition of McShane
> WE KNOW THAT THIS new deposition has been put in to repair some of the
> damage done previously, where McShane was forced to admit how many people
> have read OT2 and OT3, and his admittance that people *pay* for those
> courses. (Any commercial exploitation of a text is in itself sufficient to
> constitute publication, and thus, under European law, gives every citizen
> the right to possess copies for private use and allows everybody to quote
> from it.)
> Magnusson: How many copies has RTC itself produced of OT2, OT3 and NOTs?
> McShane: Of OT2, RTC has produced about twenty packs for each of the
> Advanced Churches. That is approximately a hundred copies in total. For
> OT3 the numbers are a little bit higher, about thirty copies for each
> Advanced Church. In case of the NOTs it is different, each of the Advanced
> Churches only has four copies, except for the Advanced Church in Florida
> that actually is the church that trains the NOTs ministers. They have
> about seventy copies.
> M: That means that all in all there are about a hundred copies of OT2,
> hundred and fifty of OT3, and seventy or eighty of the NOTs?
> McShane: Of the NOTs, that would be about eighty-six copies. Each of them
> is part of the inventory, is numbered and is plugged into the computer.
> M: ..
> McShane: Yes, about [xx] years ago we translated the OTs and NOTs into the
> four main languages: German, Spanish, French, Italian.
> M: Are these translations part of the total amount of copies?
> McShane: Yes, those numbers include the translations.
> M: [assessing the degree of infringement as perpetrated by Zenon
> Panoussis]
> McShane: I went through how much he infringed and [gets folder, opens it]
> M: [can you give us the details?]
> McShane: I compared the original work to the infringing copy. I did a word
> count and determined how many words he took from the originals. For
> instance, from OT2 he infringed upon 10 individual works and 4 of those
> works are infringed upon 100%, one is infringed upon for 94%, one for 84%,
> one for 75%, one for 62%, one for 20%, and the last one for 7%.
> I did the same calculations for OT3. 15 works were infringed upon. 13 of
> those for 100%, one for 66%, and the last one for 29 %.
> I also did the same calculations for the NOTs. Of a total of 60 works 53
> or 54 of the NOTs series and 4 other works were infringed upon. Just about
> all of them were infringed 100% There were two, I would say for 99,99%
> infringed upon, one for 91%, and there was a couple that was infringed
> upon for 95 % and another 80%. But the majority was taken verbatim.
> M: .. summarise .. sentences .. text ..
> McShane: I don't follow the question
> M: [Are there other texts among the infringements?]
> McShane: no there are not.
> M: The notary public, Alexandersson said that the distribution list of
> NOTs 54 mentions "solo NOTs". Can you explain?
> McShane: I testified that there was no Solo OT5. There *is* a course
> called Solo NOTs, but the member or parishioner who does that course does
> not study the NOTs himself, and although it says "NOTs Pack" on the cover,
> there is no NOTs issue or NOTs course on OT6.
>    [Comment: this ping-pong between Magnusson and
>    McShane is the result of Zenon asking about
>    Solo NOTs. Zenon had implied that the Solo NOTs
>    - a course that has been done by plenty of
>    Scientology members - are part of the NOTs
>    pack. Here, McShane tries to refute that.]
> M: [can you explain a bit more about the OT-levels]
> McShane: Each of the OT-levels were based on research that Mr. Hubbard did
> into the spiritual nature of man, in order to discover the means, the ways
> of improving man's spiritual nature, all leading to the ultimate goal of
> immortality. Each of the OT-levels are an expression of Mr. Hubbard's
> writings, of what he discovered. And I know that it is hard to understand
> what those writings mean without prior knowledge, but after my
> twenty-seven years of being in the church, I'm very familiar with Mr.
> Hubbard's writings and also from testifying in court cases, that each of
> those individual works is an expression of what he discovered on those
> particular subjects. I know that it is difficult for the courts to review
> this material, because we are dealing with religious scriptures, but the
> courses and the material contained within those courses impart to the
> individual that reads them the revelations that Mr. Hubbard discovered;
> and when you apply that material to yourself, you discover those
> revelations.
> M: [Panoussis being wrong about whether any payment is expected for
> studying the NOTs]
> McShane: Yes, Zenon Panoussis has it totally wrong. OT5 and the NOTs are
> only available to Scientology ministers and they do not pay for this
> course. These are employees of the church and it is their training. They
> do *not* pay for it.
> M: [about the additional ministers who studied the NOTs Pack, over and
> above the 325 ministers that McShane testified have read them]
> McShane: My testimony was about the state of affairs at the beginning of
> the trial at hand. I did not calculate any new ministers, but obviously
> there have been additional people trained under the same circumstances.
> M: [how many additional people have studied the NOTs?]
> McShane: Maybe between 50 and 100 additional members. Again, these are
> church members, they are staff, and they do not pay for this course.
> 15:27 - Zenon's turn.
> Zenon: The percentages that you mention you have calculated pertain to
> Exhibit 37? [That exhibit is what Zenon filed and what became public: it
> contains the OTs from the Fishman Affidavit and the NOTs.]
> McShane: Yes.
> Z: Are these percentages based on calculations per word, or on the amount
> of words?
> McShane: I took your infringing copy and highlighted all the words and
> then counted all the words that were the same.
> Z: Did you count any instances of words in the wrong order as an
> infringement?
> McShane: I found no instances of that.
> Z: Do your calculations pertain to individual works or the whole
> collection?
> McShane: To individual works.
> Z: With respect to the NOTs, you stated that sixty works were infringed
> upon. Are these sixty works all parts of the NOTs pack?
> [Some discussion ensues as to what is the NOTs pack.]
> Z: The sixty works that were infringed upon, are they all part of the
> binder that you showed here last Friday?
> McShane: yes.
> Z: What OT-level have you yourself attained?
> McShane: OT6.
> Z: That means that you only have personal knowledge about everything up to
> and including OT6, but not of anything higher?
> McShane: Yes.
> Z: With respect to the ministers who study the NOTs: you say that they
> don't pay for this course. But do they have to *donate*?
> McShane: No.
> Z: What is the official title of these ministers, their 'hat'?
> McShane: Auditors.
> Z: Ehm, I mean what *class* of auditors?
> McShane: Class IX.
> [Z gets up and borrows a Scientology glossy from the court that has been
> filed as evidence; it contains a price list]
> Z: Can you explain what it says here? "Class IX auditing rates - 9250 USD
> for 12,5 hours".
> McShane: That is what auditing *with them* costs.
> Z: Is this what the auditors pay, or the auditees?
> McShane: The auditees. The price refers to auditing rates for 12,5 hours.
> So if your a parishioner and you want to do NOTs, that would be the
> donation rate for 12,5 hours of auditing in Flag Clearwater, which is our
> Advanced Church in Florida.
> Z: Let me rephrase. The people who actually get to see and study the NOTs:
> are they expected to pay any fixed donations?
> McShane: No.
> Z: In the magazines that are now on their way, Source Magazine issue 132
> from 2000, and International Scientology News issue 9, 1999, it is claimed
> that 57 and 60 new Class IX Auditors respectively are about to get their
> grades. Is it probable that this many people have participated in NOTs
> since the previous trial?
> McShane: That is possible.
> 15:40 - McShane's deposition is done
> Some discussion about the magazines that are on their way ensues. On
> behalf of RTC, Magnusson admits that about 100 people have read the NOTs
> after 1998. As a result, the magazines do not need to be filed as
> evidence.
> Both parties' written evidence is then mentioned and noted - a procedural
> necessity, brought about by the Swedish legal system that demands that all
> arguments, grounds and evidence have to be presented verbally.
> We are ready at 16:30, and pack our stuff. This time we need to take the
> extra binders with us with us that Magnusson brought in at the first day.
> Zenon had just left them in the court room so far; there was no point in
> dragging them along. Besides, we couldn't carry them with us even if we
> wanted; but fortunately, this time one of our supporters has shown up and
> he will carry them for us. We take one of the cartons that Magnusson
> brought them in and pack.
> Only later we look at the box more closely. On the side, it says:
>          Legal Source, Inc
>          The Total Litigation Support Company
> ... based in California. "Total litigation support"? Duh. Do they deliver
> jails, too?
> Outside the court we have a much-needed smoke. The UK guy who approached
> us yesterday is there waiting for us: yes, he went to visit the local
> Scientology Org to get a second opinion *and* to fish for information
> about his grandson. To his great surprise, just before he entered, he saw
> the guy we had observed at the pub yesterday exit the Org...
> We have a drink with our supporter. He gets to carry the extra carton. In
> the pub, we notice a woman who is slightly out of place. She has seated
> herself in such a way that she has an excellent view of us and she
> 'appears' to be reading a newspaper. Since we are tired of being followed,
> we devise a trick to figure out what is going on. Zenon will leave, and we
> will observe her.
> Within thirty seconds of Zenon having exited the pub, the woman folds her
> paper and leaves. Our supporter phones Zenon on his mobile: "She's getting
> out of the door *now*." Our supporter and I continue talking, meanwhile
> scrutinising the street. After six or eight minutes, we see the same woman
> in the presence of a man passing the cafe, Zenon just behind them. He
> points at them and mimics at us. Our supporter gets up and joins Zenon.
> After a few minutes, Z and our supporter get back into the cafe. "The
> street is swarming with Scientologists," Zenon exclaims. "I noticed at
> least five," and he explains what happened. When he went out, he saw a guy
> who was loitering and then slowly moved in the direction that Zenon was
> taking, so then Zenon turned around a corner and stopped; he saw the guy
> looking at him, pretending that he didn't, and then he exchanged glances
> with another woman and wandered off, obviously having lost his purpose.
> This second woman appeared lost when Zenon simply turned and walked back
> to where he came from. Two guys were sitting in a parked car. On his way
> back to the café, Zenon saw the woman from the café coming towards him.
> The moment she noticed him, she turned around and walked back again,
> walked past the café and stopped at the next shop window. Behind her was a
> man, obviously unrelated to her, but he stopped at the shop window too and
> started talking with the woman. Sure enough, Zenon was yet further behind,
> so the man hadn't seen him.
> Zenon continued past the café and reaches the two, overhearing part of the
> woman's exited explanations to the man. Zenon stopped next to them at the
> same shop window, whereby the man and the woman immediately departed in
> the direction they had just came from.
> At this point Zenon followed them past the café and stopped them. "Can we
> stop these stupid little games NOW?" Zenon demande. "I don't know what you
> are talking about," the woman mumbled. (The natural answer would of course
> have been: "Games? What the fuck are you talking about? Who are you?")
> Zenon scolded them severely and returned to the café.
> When later all three of us get into a taxi, we are followed by a white
> Volvo. When we stop to let off our supporter, the white Volvo stops behind
> a parked bus. Our supporter takes them for a ride from there, while we,
> just in case, make sure that they have to spend a few hours in the Swedish
> cold if they manage to follow us.
> Karin Spaink Stockholm, January 25 2001
> - - K -
> - --
> Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to
> others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what
> you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
>   - Lewis Carroll: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> #  archive: contact:
> ------------------------------
> End of nettime-l-digest V1 #183
> *******************************

Nettime-bold mailing list