Scientology's lawsuit
in full proceedings

Today, Febrary the twenty sixth of nineteen hundred and ninety six, as requested by:

1. the incorporated religious organization according to foreign law CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNLOGY, established in Los Angeles, United States of America,
2. the incorporated religious organization according to foreign law RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, established in Los Angeles, United States of America,
3. the coporate body according to foreign law NEW ERA PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL ApS, established at Copenhagen, Denmark,

SUMMONED IN LAWSUIT:

1. the private company with limited liability DATAWEB B.V., statutory established in 's-Gravenhage (The Hague);
2. the foundation STICHTING XS4ALL, statutory established in Amsterdam;
3. the foundation STICHTING DE DIGITALE STAD, statutory established in Amsterdam;
4. the private company with limited liability CISTRON INTERNET SERVICES B.V., statutory established in Alphen aan den Rijn;
5. the private company with limited liability INTERNET ACCESS EINDHOVEN, statutory established in Eindhoven;
6. the company according to foreign law EURONET INTERNET INC., statutory established in Wilmington, USA, and in Amsterdam;
7. the private company with limited liability PLANET INTERNET B.V., statutory established in Amsterdam;
8. the private company with limited liability B-ART NOORD NEDERLAND B.V., statutory established in The Hague and in Groningen;
9. the private company with limited liability WIREHUB! INTERNET B.V., statutory established in Rotterdam;
10. the foundation STICHTING INTERNET ACCESS, statutory established in Slochteren;
11. the foundation STICHTING TELEBYTE, statutory established in Nijmegen;
12. Ronald Walter VERGEER, acting on behalf of B-ART MIDDEN NEDERLAND B.V. I.O., and residing in The Hague;
13. the partnership under firm LUNATECH RESEARCH, statutory established in Rotterdam;
14. Michael David PENTOWSKI, partner of the defendant sub 13, residing in Rotterdam;
15. Peter Firth MUNRO, partner of the defendant sub 13, residing in Rotterdam;
16. Stefan Mark ARENTZ, partner of the defendant sub 13, residing in Rotterdam;
17. Peter Alexander KAAS, partner of the defendant sub 13, residing in Rotterdam;
18. the partnership under firm SPIRIT INTERACTIEVE DIENSTEN B.V. I.O., statutory established in Rotterdam;
19. the public limited company N.V. ENECO, partner of the defendant sub 18, statutory established in Rotterdam;
20. the private company with limited liability ROTTERDAMS DAGBLAD B.V., partner of the defendant sub 18, statutory established in Rotterdam;
21. the MUNICIPALITY ROTTERDAM (DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ROTTERDAM), partner of the defendant sub 18, residing in Rotterdam;
22. the private company with limited liability METROPOLIS INTERNET B.V., statutory established in Dordrecht;
23. Karin SPAINK, living in Amsterdam.

appear, whether or not represented by an attorney, on Februari the twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and ninety six, at ten AM at the session of the president of the county court in 's-Gravenhage (The Hague), doing justice in a lawsuit, to be held at the Palace of Justice, 2 Juliana van Stolberglaan;

NOTIFYING:

that defendants will be obliged to pay the flatrate amount of fl 330,- on appearance, which can be reduced when the defendants prove to be poor or indigent;

IN ORDER:

to hear the following demands and conclusions made:

1. Plaintiff sub 1, hereafter to be called 'CST', posesses the copyright on various confidential, published (non-confidential) as well as unpublished (confidential) works, created by the in 1986 deceased L. Ron Hubbard. These works refer to the teachings and activities of the Church of Scientology, a church of American origine that is established amongst others by churches and missions in various countries.

2. Plaintiff sub 2, hereafter to be called 'RTC', is worldwide (with the exception of the United States of America) the exclusive licenseholder of the copyrights of the works mentioned above and proxy to maintenance of these rights.

3. Plaintiff sub 3, hereafter to be called 'NEPI', has amongst others the exclusive right to publish a number of the non- confidential works worldwide (with the exception of North and South America) and is proxy to maintenance of these rights.

4. The works concerned in the present procedure are commonly known under the names of 'Operating Thetan I' to 'Operating Thetan VII' (OT I to OT VII), hereafter to be called 'the OT- works', and consist partly of series of independant works. As a consequence of the teachings of the Church of Scientology, these works are solely accessible for selected members of the church, who have reached a certain level of spirituality and who are invited by the Church to partake in religious meetings where a limited use of the OT works is made. These members are held to strict secrecy, by means of secrecy-declarations to be signed by the selected members. Secrecy of the OT-works is applied with the greatest possible care; neither the teachings nor the practice of the Church of Scientology allow others than the above mentioned selected members to study the works. These selected members are not even allowed to make copies or take notes. The works have never been made accessible to the general public with permission of the owner.

5. The OT-works have been registered at the United States Copyright Office (USCO). Because the documents concerned are confidential, the transcripts filed have been 'masked' conforming to USCO-regulations, in order to preserve their confidential nature.

6. The non-confidential work concerned in the present procedure is known as 'The Scientologist (Ability major I)'. This work has been registered at the USCO in 1955 under the name 'Ability'. At this moment, the work is published by NEPI as a part of the so- called 'Technical Bulletins' (Volume 3).

7. In 1993, a defendant in a legal procedure in the United States has submitted a written testimony, the so-called 'Fishman Affadavit'. Appendix F of this declaration contains a duplication a considerable part of the published, non-confidential work 'Ability'. Appendix G of this declaration contains a duplication of a considerable part of the unplished non-confidential OT-works. Plaintiffs have not given permission to incorporate these works in the Fishman Affadavit. They have immediately resisted possible unrestrained access to the OT-works by third parties.

8. RTC has filed three procedures in the United States that also refer to the publication and/or duplication by third parties of (a number of) OT-works. In these three procedures the judges have ruled that, pending the procedures, no more unauthorised publication and/or duplication of the OT-works may take place. In one of these proceeding, the judge recently ordered that the works referred to are copyrighted and that placing them on the Internet infringes upon these copyrights.

9. The Internet is a worldwide network of computers and computer networks that in recent years is also being widely used by private persons. The communication between the computers that are part of this network proceeds by a certain standard. Access can be obtained through various (whether or not commercial) organizations, amongst whom are the so-called 'Internet access providers'.

10. Once on the network, a large number of options are possible, amongst those access to electronic databases, the use of e-mail (electronic mail), partaking in discussion groups, bulletin boards and access to the World Wide Web. On this Web it is possible to construct the so-called 'homepages', e.g. create one's own documents and making them available to third parties.

11. Every file (such as for instance a homepage) that is accessible through the World Wide Web has its own indication, the 'Uniform Resource Locator' (URL). This URL is a unique 'address' that makes it possible for third parties to open the file using certain software, the so-called 'World Wide Web browser'. If one for instance accesses a homepage, it appears on the user's computer screen. Therefore, the URL shows what file is concerned and where (i.e. on which computer system) it is located; the name and/or address of the one responsible for making the document available through the Internet is nevertheless usually not traceable.

12. The URL's mentioned above can (by means of a computer language that is also referred to as 'hypertext') be in included in mentioned homepages that can be accessed with the browser. This is also called a 'link'. On the screen, such a link looks like for instance a differently coloured word or an image. By activating (for instance with a mouse) such a command/link, the file that is indicated by the link is transferred to the computer of the user that activates the command and shown on his computer screen. This file can be another homepage, but also any other form of digital information.

13. The defendants sub 1 up to and including 22 hereafter to be called 'the providers', are Internet access providers. Their computer systems offer users the possibility to access the Internet. Defendant sub 7, hereafter to be called 'Spaink' uses the services of one or more of these providers.

14. Plaintiffs have noticed that the Fishman Affidavit, of which considerable parts of the unpublished, confidential OT-works and Ability are a part, are being published and/or duplicated on the Internet through the systems of the providers, by a number of their users, amongst whom Spaink.

15. The Internet homepages that users place on the Internet can afterwards be accessed and 'downloaded' by third parties that have access to the Internet. This means that infringing publication and/or duplication of the mentioned works in the sense of Artcile 1 of the Copyright Law of 1912 is taking place under the responsability of the users, amongst whom Spaink.

16. Apart from that, providers are also responsible for this infringing publication and/or duplication of mentioned works. After all, they are being presented to third parties through the systems of the providers. If a user makes infringing documens available on his homepage, a copy of those documents is present in the system of the provider concerned. When third parties access a homepage, the provider offers them a copy of it, that can be 'downloaded' when the user wants to save it on his hard disk.

17. When the infringing documents are made available to others by means of a 'link' that is included in the homepage, which points at the infringing documents (whether or not present in another computer system) and which (when activated) makes duplicates of these documents visible on the screen of the user's computer, this is also considered as an infringing publication and/or duplication of said works by the user and the provider.

18. By publishing and/or duplicating the OT-works and Ability without permission, Spaink and the providers are infringing the rights of the plaintiffs and are therefore acting unlawfully against the latter.

19. The confidential nature of the unpublished OT-works, that plaintiffs regard as 'trade secrets' as described in US law, prevents submitting of the works as evidence in the present procedure. Submitting the OT-works would harm plaintiff's rights and position in procedures in the United States. In the present procedure, plaintiffs base their demands on the wholesale copying of parts of the OT-works, but they are also of the opinion that the rights of other parts of other parts of the OT-works are violated by the defendants, because of publication and/or duplication of a version in the ense of the Copyright Law 1912. In order to prove the exact duplication, plaintiffs have asked a notary to compare the masked copies of the OT-works that are mentioned in the above paragraph 5 with the infringing documents, and allowed the notary (because of of his professional vow of secrecy) to use the original works. On the masked copies, the notary has marked those parts that can literally be found in the infringing documents that are published and/or duplicated by the defendants. All this made clear that considerbale parts of the works known as OT II and OT III have been literally copied. A comparison by the notary will be produced at the lawsuit. Apart from that, plaintiffs have offered the defendants to look into the original works in the office of the plaintiff's lawyer.

20. Plaintiffs have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful acts of Spaink and the providers, and risk further damage.

21. Spaink and the providers have been summoned to cease their unlawful actions. They have not complied to this demand.

22. Therefore, plaintiffs have a right to and interest in the following claims.

if it pleases the President of the County Court in 's-Gravenhage (The Hague) to pronounce verdict and to:

1. Order defendant sub 23 to immediately refrain from any infringement on the copyrights of plaintiff sub 1 and to remain doing so in the future, including any publication and/or duplication of the documents known as Ability and OT I to OT VII, subsequently to immediately stop and in the future refrain from publication and/or duplication of the documents known as Ability and OT II and OT III;

2. Order defendants sub 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 en 8:

   firstly to immediately stop and continue to do so in the future any infringement on the copyrights of plaintiff sub 1, including publication and/or duplication of the documents known as Ability and OT I to OT VII, subsequently to immediately stop and in the future refrain from publication and/or duplication of the documents known as Ability and OT II and OT III;

   secondly to immediately remove, when notified of the presence of those documents on their system or on a system controlled by them, any infringing documents, including the documents known as Ability and OT I to OT VII, subsequently the documents known as Ability and OT II and OT II,

   moreover to immediately, when notified of the presence of any infringing documents, including the documents known Ability and OT I to OT VII, subsequently the documents known as Ability and OT II and OT III, on their system (or on a system controlled by them) ask the users to remove these documents and to deny the user concerned all further access to their sytem if he refuses to comply to this demand;

3. Order the defendants sub 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 to inform plaintiffs within three days after the verdict about the names and addresses of third parties who have made infringing documents available through their system (or on a system controlled by them) or will be publishing such documents after the verdict;

   the under a., b., and c. mentioned on penalty of fl. 10,000 for every failure to follow any command given under a., b., and c., to be paid by the defendant concerned, including the condition that the defendants sub 5 and 6 will be personally held responsible for any actions of defendant sub 4;

4. Sentence all defendants personally to pay the cost of this lawsuit.

(signature)

This case is being treated by Mrs R. Hermans en C.S.M. Morel, Nauta Dutilh, lawyers, notaries and tax concultants, 59 Prinses Irenestraat, 1077 WV Amsterdam, telephone: ## 31 (0)20- 541.4646, fax: ## 31 (0)20-541.4700, filenumber: 50011089.

(translation by Patricia Savenije)