OT II and III replaced
a.r.s., Februari 22, 1996

At the beginning of this week, Felipe Rodriquez, Pieter Bakker Schut (our lawyer) and me were finally able to see the new notary statement that RTC etc referred to in their subpoena of Feb. 1, a statement that was also referred to in their drafted subpoena of Jan. 18. It transpired that the notary's statement had only been finished on Feb. 16.

To summarize it: the notary was given the unmasked versions of OT 2 and OT3 plus the masked copies, compared the two sets and found that they were indeed the same. He then proceeded to compare this with my homepage. On prints of the versions of OT 2 and OT 3 that are on my homepage, he then marked the parts that were exactly the same with a yellow marker, and the passages that were different, with a blue one. Attached to the notary's statment were a set of those marked prints. There was indeed a lot of yellow.

That meant that the versions of OT 2 and OT 3 on my homepage were indeed infringing RTC's copyright.

Also, we finally got to see a copy of the 'Ability' article. A part of that article is included in the Fishman Affidavit, as Exhibit G - also know as 'Magazine Articles on Level 0 Checksheet' or 'Dissemination of Material'.

The Dutch Protest started because Scientology raided a Dutch provider without showing any proof whatsoever that their copyrights were infringed; their claims were, so to speak, disproportionate to the severe claims they had. Now that they finally have shown proof, we need to evaluate the proof on its own merits, and try not to weigh or like or dislike of the organisation that shows the proof.

Our lawyers were at last able to asses the evidence. Bakker Schut and Pors & Van Maanen for Planet Internet - have thereupon given advise to take down OT 2, OT 3 and Exhibit G.

This afternoon, on Feb. 22, 1996 at 12.00, I have removed those three articles from my homepage at XS4all and from my homepage at Planet Internet.

The trial will continue. RTC &c will surely want to have a verdict on homepages other than mine. And they will probably still want us to remove OT 1 and OT - OT 7.

Our lawyers believe that the court, upon being informed of these recent developments, will dismiss plaintiffs' motion and refer the case to a court for full procedures. After having removed the three mentioned articles, I have uploaded three new articles that replece them: summaries and comments. The version of OT 2 that is currently on my homepages, is Michael Robinson's summary, which was once posted to a.r.s.. I have rewritten and commented upon OT 3, greatly aided by Jon Atack's articlel 'OT 3 for beginners'. I have also rewritten and summarized Exhibit G. Both OT 3 and Exhibit G als OT 3 contain quotes from the originals.

I have advised all participants of the Dutch Protest to take down Exhibit G, OT 2 and OT 3, and have invited them to replace them with my versions.

So, on to Moday!

Copyright Karin Spaink.
This text is offered for personal use only. Any
other use requires the author's written permission.