You know that you’re being sued by Scientology when…

Stockholm, Thursday, May 28 1998

[Previous installment: Brochures with a bite.] Every morning, it’s the same routine. We get up too early, quickly prepare some coffee, smoke, wash, check our mail, smoke, dress, phone a taxi and hurry to Tingsrätt where Zenon then needs to buy cigarettes in a shop opposite the court.

There’s so much stuff to take along. Two computers. Cables. Batteries. My wheelchair. And most important, a stack of five crammed binders with all pertinent files. Some of the stuff is piled on my lap and Zenon carries the rest. We feel like we’re becoming regular housemovers.

In court, we see the same people again and again. There’s a girl whose friend is a member of Scientology and who is worried because the friend wants to join the Sea Org in Copenhagen; there’s Karsten, from the Danish Dialog Centre; there are a couple of journalists who follow most of the court sessions and report on an almost daily basis; there’s a woman who has organised a support group for former cult members (today, she will give Zenon a vase of flowers, with this nice little card attached to it: “For all you’ve done for humanity”); there’s friends of Zenon’s who attend.

We take a lot of taxi’s. In this one week, we will spend 2700 kronor – circa 325 US$ — on transport alone.

9:35. The bailiff is called to testify. On RTC’s behalf, she confiscated Zenon’s hard disks etc.; a computer expert was hired to search it.

However, as the bailiff didn’t have the original texts, she didn’t know what to search for. Zenon finally decided to help by handing in a copy of the OTs and NOTS to the bailiff. That way, the bailiff could do the search, and Zenon could get his hard disk back, which he desperately needed. In this way, the bailiff retrieved what was purportedly a NOTS pack from Zenon’s hard disk and put it on diskette. Search terms she was asked to use in case Zenon hadn’t helped her to retrieve these files, were ‘volcano’, ‘BT’, ‘GP/M’, ‘Vorlon’ and ‘Ward’ (as in: Grady Ward). The notary public later compared this diskette to Attachment 37, and found that they were the same.

Small wonder. Attachment 37 is a print-out from a file on Zenon’s hard disk. A print-out from the file he himself helped to retrieve. Zenon has stated that much. The bailiff is apparently brought in to establish a chain of evidence: hard disk — diskette — Attachment 37. Which is silly, because this chain of evidence is completely unnecessary and doesn’t need to be established in the first place: after all, Zenon himself has verified that Attachment 37 is a print-out from this file on his hard disk. Why this detour? To confuse the court? To insinuate that he had yet ‘another’ copy of a NOTS pack, i.e. the diskette? But they had him make that…

9:45. Exit bailiff.

Magnusson speaks about the net, more specifically about Zenon’s homepage, e-mail and postings to Usenet (i.e. alt.religion.scientology). He explains that ISPs have rules about not abusing one’s account and stipulates that Zenon did indeed abuse his account at Wineasy, by putting the NOTS on his homepage there.

Magnusson is stalling. Speaking teasingly, almost lethally slow, as if he were verbosely dictating a letter to an apprentice secretary instead of presenting a group of intelligent people with a coherent set of arguments. Also, it would seem, he’s putting forward either the obvious or repeating stuff everybody by now knows Zenon and Magnusson disagree about. Zenon becomes visibly impatient.

Magnusson wishes to discuss a posting of May 2, 1996, allegedly sent by Zenon, in which he announces that in two days he will post the NOTS to alt.religion.scientology. To everybody’s dismay Magnusson starts spelling headers. “N N T P dash user dash …”

Magnusson discusses the financial damages RTC suffers due to the dissemination of their secret material. Also, RTC has suffered a ‘kränking’ by Zenon’s behaviour, they have been ridiculed, treated without any respect whatsoever.

The president asks Zenon for a reply. Zenon maintains that “the material” lacks in originality. Also, RTC claiming that with parts of the OTs he has copied a 100% isn’t saying much because often ‘a work’ is very short, just a paragraph, and one OT-level consists of many such ‘works’. Whether they are copies at all is impossible to ascertain, because the material filed at the Copyright Office is masked.

There is a discussion about exactly how many copies of the NOTS Zenon has made. Magnusson counts literally everything as a copy: copies in RAM, copies that are printed directly from files, copies in cache, copies here, copies there, copies everywhere.

Zenon, of needs, delves into another explanation of computers. Many copies which one makes are volatile, temporary. As a matter of fact, it is not you but the computer who makes one, and you can’t prevent that. For instance, when you open a file in Word and meanwhile start doing something else, the computer will automatically reallocate memory and move the Word-document to a different place in RAM, or on RAM-disk; without you even being aware of it, you’ll have lots of temporary copies all over the place. [This really needs to be explained, seeing that RTC includes temporary copies in their calculations. The damages that RTC demands are fixed, but the principle that volatile copies shouldn’t count is important to defend.] Zenon explains that some copies RTC claims he has made, are not real copies: it’s cache memory, or RAM, or a swap file; in other words: you cannot evade making such copies as soon as you do anything with a computer.

Regarding RTC’s remark about his ISP: the ISP is not responsible for what their users do, Zenon maintains, it is users themselves which should be held accountable. ISPs are nothing but common carriers, companies that provide the technical environment. This remark causes a slight uproar in the CoS-benches behind me. One of the Swedish CoS-members scribbles a note which is handed to Magnusson, who receives it and nods happily. It would seem the two men behind me — a very young Swede, 26 at most, and a blond, almost bald American — are doing a god job. They whisper with Cowboy Boots, who seems relieved and starts leafing through a file. The three of them point at a paragraph; Cowboy Boots nods vehemently and gives the two men a thumbs-up.

Regarding Magnusson’s dissecting of Zenon’s May-2 posting, Zenon explains that you can forge every header. Headers provide no proof, only logs do. And headers often seem convincing, even when they obviously are manipulated. For instance, Zenon reminds RTC, recently there were two postings on a.r.s. purportedly made by their own lawyer Helena Kobrin. Both had valid and, to all intends and purposes, similar headers; yet the second messages claimed to be by the ‘real’ Kobrin and alleged that the first one was a forgery.

11:15. Coffee break. Smoke break.

11:35. Magnusson’s aide has traded places with the young Swedish Scientology member who sat behind me. The next witness enters: Mikael Nyström, the computer expert, who is going to be heard about the net.

The net is basically a lot of computer networks linked together, he explains, and they provide for the Web, mail and news. The Web caters to the general public, everybody can access these documents; what is in them, is decided upon by the homepage owner. Newsgroups are discussion platforms; news propagates via news servers. Which groups you can access depends on your ISP’s news server. Once you’re on, you can read and post to a selected group. News is archived at DejaNews, a searchable database. Also, there’s ftp: retrieval or delivery of files. You need it to put files on your homepage, because the homepage is located at the ISP’s disks. Then there’s mail, distributed via mail servers, whereby people can send messages to one another and copy messages from the mail server to their own computer.

[Nice that he mentions copies, temporary copies and cache. Now he is telling the judges that there are many kind of copies and that most of them are technical necessities. Unfortunately, the judges seem most unfamiliar with computers in general and with the net in particular, and they are definitely getting an information overload on the subject. Every three minutes they beep for time in order to process what they’ve heard.]

Zenon’s turn. Zenon makes the witness admit that all headers can be forged and that some people even consider it a sport to do so.

The young Swede’s turn. How can you post via e-mail to a newsgroup? [He’s bent on proving that Zenon must have made a copy of his own NOTS file to Mozilla in order to post the NOTS. Yet another copy RTC wants to be paid damages for.] Zenon grills the expert witness, who explains that yes, you can easily send off e-mail and postings at once, without making extra copies on your own computer, via Mozilla.

12:40. Exit witness. Discussion about procedures, time and witnesses.

13:00. Lunch break.

You know that you are being sued by Scientology…
… when the people working in the court’s cafeteria not only start greeting you, but also know what you want for lunch. When Zenon goes to the counter, he does no longer need to ask. One coffee, one cappuccino, two ham sandwich rolls, one apple. And an ashtray.

13:45. Yet another argument about time. Zenon would of course like as much time for his final statement as Magnusson is going to take. But it is already Thursday, and there’s two witnesses, and then McShane will be heard, and Magnusson expects this to take a long time, and …

14:00 Thomas M Small, from RTC, is called in to testify. A court interpreter translates his words for the judges. The dots represent the questions.

“I am a patent lawyer and intellectual copyright lawyer. … I compiled the agreement [between CST and RTC] before it was signed. … I was at the time representing RTC and to some extent CST as well, because they were co-operating. I attempted to put their wishes on paper. … This document was designed to give all rights to the Advanced Technology Scientology material outside the US to RTC. … That includes the OTs and NOTS, those are part of the Advanced Tech. … The agreement was intended to transfer all intellectual copyrights. 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 material is part of 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 provision in the agreement that RTC would protect these rights and, if necessary, sue infringements. … This was in RTC’s name. They were granted the exclusive right to use the materials and they can sue on their own. CST only sues when the need to do so arises. … (Magnusson gives him some papers.) … There were none other that I know of; at the bottom of the page it says that the Estate has the rights to pull [xxx] and these serve as [xxx] the ecclesiastic use of the materials. … This is religious document, agreed upon between the leaders of a religious groups and there’s a number of limitations on how these materials can be used; not in the copyright sense but rather in the ecclesiastic sense. … The rights remain the same. The role of the trustees was simply turned to RTC. …”

Zenon’s turn. “Are you saying that RTC and CST were co-operating partners in this?”

Small: “They were co-operating although RTC had not really [xxx]. The interests of CST and RTC were the same, yes. … CST did then not yet have a direct interest in the matter; that was the Estate at the time. … whether RTC and the Estate had opposing interest at that time? No they had not. … It was a exclusive license, an transfer of copyright, … the right to use and to authorise others to use is covered by the license, the copyright remains with the license holder. … that was the desire of the partners, they had no intent to transfer copyrights to RTC or to anybody else. Mr Hubbard kept his own copyrights and Mr Hubbard made provisions that the rights went to CST and they were entitled to hold the rights. … the limitations are as I intended them to state: the Scientology scriptures state that this is the way they are to be used, after all it’s Mr Hubbard’s writing.”

Zenon asks why the contract does not deal with possible conflicts between the contract partners and third parties, and why RTC’s right to sue third parties in its own name is not regulated.

Small: “Well, that right is right is a matter of law, it wasn’t necessary to say any more in the license then it now states. … This contract was made in the US between US parties, and this subject is covered by 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: “It is possible that there is a country where RTC would not have the right to sue, and the contract states that in that case CST could. I also add that this is not just a copyright agreement but also a confidentiality agreement and therefore its important for RTC to guarantee this confidentiality.”

14:35: exit witness.

The court attempts to phone Thomas K Vorn [born 10 Aug. 1964] who is vice president of CST and authorised to represent CST. They meet with some difficulties: after Vorn has stated his name, the connection dies. After a bit of a hassle, the connection stays up. Magnusson asks him some questions.
Q How long have you held this position?
Small: “Since October 88. I oversee the work done by RTC. I archive all to preserve the Scientology religion.”
Q [something about the copyright of OT2, OT3 and NOTS]
Small: “RTC is the protector of the copyrights. Mr Hubbard’s estate was transferred to CST, and RTC brings litigation in case of infringement.”
Q Could you describe CST’s position about the license to RTC?
Small: “In 1993, after the copyrights were turned over, [xxx]”
Q Which rights?
Small: “RTC had three basic rights. To authorise Scientology organisations to use the tech and provide those organisations with copies; the exclusive right to protect these copyrights; and to collect the [xxx] [money, I assume].”
Q Does this also mean, according to CST, that RTC can also start litigation in its own name?
Small: “Huh?”
Q According to CST: may RTC take legal action when it comes to protect this copyrights?
Small: “Yes.”
Q In RTC’s own name?
Small: “Yes.”
Q According to CST, are there any remaining rights not included in the license agreement and _not_ given to RTC?
Small: “No.”
Q Could this mean that RTC [xxx]
Small: “Yes.”

Zenon’s turn.
Zenon: “Why did CST sue Spaink in Holland, if RTC takes care of this?”
Small: “– ehm. I don’t understand the question.”
Magnusson interrupts.
Zenon: “If RTC is supposed to sue in its own name and that is sufficient, why did CST sue Spaink et al in Holland?”
Small: “I cannot say.”
Zenon: “No further questions.”
15:00. That Zenon has no further questions is fortunate, because the connection fails again before the judges can formally thank Mr Vorn. The judge asks Zenon for a clarification.
15:15. Smoke break.

15:30. We re-enter. Magnusson has announced to Zenon that he will need 2,5 hours to question McShane on the materials (closed doors again), plus 1 hour to question him on RTC/CST. Zenon wants to question him as well, which means we’ll be well into Friday morning before we can start with the final arguments & points — time of which Magnusson will take up the lot, too, probably. They are trying to fuck up the schedule.

The judge reminds both parties — and does so with great emphasis — of the need to be concise and to adhere to schedule.

By now, it is nevertheless obvious that the trial needs to be prolonged. There is no time for all these witnesses plus two final pleas. [Magnusson’s final plea will take a lot of time because he speaks so tediously slow; Zenon’s will take time because Magnusson insists on interrupting him and trying to prevent him from discussing specific subjects.] Dammit. Prolong the hearings, but when? Zenon needs to be back at work on Monday; we have booked planes on Sunday. Monday is a holiday, so the earliest day the court can resume its proceedings is Tuesday. That means that Zenon has to take another two days off from work, needs to cancel his plane and book another — probably rather expensive — return flight. It also means that I cannot be present during the final plea and can not help Zenon in his preparations.

McShane doesn’t care about the prolongation. He can easily stay. Or even go home for the weekend. He doesn’t need to take leave from work. As a matter of fact, being in court is his work, as both the RTC and the CST witnesses have just explained.

15:55. McShane will be called to testify and will be asked about “the” materials. The doors will be closed: chances are that parts of Scientology’s Advanced Tech will be mentioned, and we can’t have that, can we?

16:00 Doors close. I pack my stuff and leave with the rest.

16:35 Doors open. Now that was quick!

There’s an argument about planning. Again. And about protocols. Cowboy Boots -hired lawyer Bill Hart, as we have learned meanwhile — kindly warns me not to unpack: chances are the court will recede within ten minutes. They do indeed. Zenon and I go off for a smoke, a drink and a meal. And yes, we will work all evening again.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the May 22,1998 – June 3, 1998 sessions. Next: Questioning McShane.]

Brochures with a bite

Stockholm, Wednesday, 27 May 1998

[Previous installment: To want a pie and eat it. This court case – the main case in the many Scientology vs Panoussis series – deals with copyright infringement. Did Zenon violate RTC’s rights when he had OT2 and OT3 on his homepage, and did he post the NOTS? Day one of this case was mainly spent discussing settlements.]

9:15. Yesterday, Magnusson hadn’t finished his opening statements — in which you state your position — and is allowed to continue. He doesn’t take long and speaks only about OT2, OT3 and the NOTS, the authenticity of which will be proved later on, amongst others during the hearing of witnesses. “You can’t use witnesses to put forward new statements in a case like this,” the president of the court reminds him; “You can only use them to prove a previously stated argument.” Hmm. Anyway, Magnusson states, the most important proof has already been filed: the registration number copies. These prove the authenticity of the NOTS and testify to the fact that they are copyrightable: only material that has a certain amount of originality (“value”, or “dignity” in Swedish law: meaning, they must be distinctive, creative, testify to a personal style or something) can be registered, Magnusson explains. And yes, the OTs and NOTS therefore must have met this necessary level of originality. “Excuse me,” Zenon interrupts. “will you please state which material was filed with the Registration Office? Were those masked or unmasked OTs and NOTS?” Zenon asks. “Masked,” Magnusson replies. Exit argument. Who on earth can judge the level of originality of a masked text?

OT2 & 3 and the NOTS are a recurring subject. Magnusson mentions that Zenon had copies of the OT/NOTS on his disks — but which version, Zenon wants to know? To which NOTS were they compared? Attachment 37? 24? 126?

Zenon starts his opening statement. How can something that is on the net end up on his disks? Where did he get this stuff in the first place? He lectures about e-mail, Usenet, the Web, about downloading, browsers, urls, hyperlinks, headers. He speaks a couple of sentences and then waits for the judges to finish their notes before he continues. Smart. This is a verbal case; files are assumed to be used for referral only, and the judges will base their decision upon their assessment of what they are told. [Also, he later explains me, the judges asked him twice or thrice to please slow down.]

“I found OT2 and OT3 on the Web,” he explains. “There were lots of copies.” He mentions the case in Holland which triggered him: RTC sued over OT2 and 3 and lost: the Dutch court in March 1996 allowed my mixture of summary, comments, notes and quotes. “This same file that RTC sued somebody else over, is now by the way being claimed as copyrighted by themselves in this case,” he remarks, referring of course to file 143 of attachment 126. Magnusson uneasily shifts in his chair.

Zenon proceeds with his historical outline, argument and position. The announcement of his homepage, the ensuing Kobrinogram, his provocative tone, the aggression RTC had displayed against ISPs, their cancel messages, their demands that providers terminate users’ accounts, how what he is doing is in sync with what others on the net are doing, how he has always been totally open about who he was, what he did, why, and even told them how they could stop him. A Swedish Scientology member who is sitting two rows behind me makes derogatory noises. “Psah. Pfah!”

Now, can OT2 and 3 as included in the Fishman Affidavit, be considered to be quotes? The originals, McShane has at one point testified in cross-examination, total to 300 and 200 pages respectively. The Fishman OT2 and OT3 quotes may be huge, but not in proportion to the total amount of text. The Fishman Affidavit contains no more than 7 or 8 percent of the total number of pages. And yes, there are many questions surrounding the authenticity of OTs/NOTS: RTC has the habit of claiming everything to be theirs. Including, in this case, dialect versions of NOTS (Swedish chef, Jamaican, Nuyorikan); my rendering and criticism of Hubbard; cut-up, mixed and reshuffled versions of NOTS. It would appear that whenever a Hubbard phrase shows up in any text, no matter whose, RTC claims the copyright to the wholeof this text.

Zenon refers to documents and attachments quite often. The nasty bit is that he will often use Magnusson’s own filed stuff in order to make a point for himself: he’s using Magnusson’s material against RTC. And something else becomes clear. The judges need to look up most of the document Zenon refers to. They are not very familiar with the files. Magnusson has simply been spamming the court and his own virtual flood of files has prevented the judges from preparing well. And they don’t like it.

Coffee break.

Zenon discusses September 1996, when he filed a NOTS pack at Riksdagen (the Swedish parliament) and the Administrative Section of the court — which is how the NOTS became publicly accessible in Sweden. He gave a copy to parliament because he wanted to instigate a discussion about CoS and the NOTS, he states. Since he gave only one copy to parliament, which can be considered to be a ‘limited circle’, he did not publish or distribute these NOTS, he argues.

Why he handed over a copy to the Administrativa Avdelningen — the Administrative Section — is a more delicate matter. They had one already, which was not given them by himself but which ended up being there as a result of the procedure he was involved in. Administrative sections of courts file stuff. That’s what they are for. At one point, Zenon himself was sent a copy retrieved from the Administrative Section — somebody had ordered a copy and had requested that it be sent to him. Anybody can get one, for just a small administrative fee. Later, when the Administrative Court’s own copy was stolen by a Scientologist, Thierry Duchaunac, Zenon provided them with a fresh pack: the copies he himself was given.

Time to discuss the OTS, the NOTS and the beliefs of Scientology itself. Zenon delves into it, making snide remarks about Hubbard’s career as a science fiction writer, about the ‘gains’ and ‘wins’ CoS promises; about Thetans; about the need to inform the public beforehand about which tenets of belief they will be supposed to subscribe to, once a member. “It is a matter of consumer’s rights, in a way.”

McShane gets very nervous and slips Magnusson a note. Magnusson immediately interrupts. “We’re not here to discuss Scientology’s merits and also, I’m afraid that Panoussis is trying to disclose some of the secret materials right now.” “I’m not quoting, just saying something about them,” Zenon retorts, but the judges agree that Scientology’s character is not to be judged today.

Next issue: the rights to the texts. There is this spaghetti-structure which becomes a Gargantuan, Gordian knot. The structure is self-referring, seems to be licensing rights years after they have already licensed them to others while not having retrieved them; dates and years do not match, and some documents are signed one year yet refer in the body of the text to dates years ahead. (McShane quickly gets up to whisper something to Magnusson again.) Magnusson speaks up; there is a short discussion and much leafing through documents.

“I am only trying to show you that these rights and licenses are not as clear-cut as RTC and Magnusson say they are, and I would like to show this by using their own documents.” I do believe that at one point he states that one of the documents handed in carrying RTC’s or CST’s or Starkey’s signature to be a forgery: the word “förfalskning” is being used quite often. McShane quickly confers with Magnusson. McShane’s face is red with anger. He sits down again. Everybody looks at documents, files and folders. McShane goes over to Magnusson once more. “Are we all talking about the same document?” the president wishes to know. Magnusson speaks: all this talk about forgery amounts to character assassination. The president renders a speech. He wants to know whether Zenon has referred to this matter previously in his briefs; if not, he is bringing up new issues, which is not allowed. Also, the president insist, we’re not adhering to schedule and he is not, repeat: not going to sit here until eight o’clock in the evening.

Lunch break.

Zenon goes through his previous briefs in a hurry, and does indeed find some previous references to forgery or fakes. We smoke, talk with a journalist in training, smoke, eat a sandwich, smoke, drink coffee, smoke; and the hour is gone. Time flies when you’re having fun.

13:00. Zenon will not let go. He takes up the issue once more by referring to David Mayo. Hubbard wasn’t the only one to write NOTS; some of them have been written by Mayo only, some of them were written by the both of them, others by Elron only. Can RTC claim copyright to all of them? Did CST have the right to license those? There’s rights residing with CSC too. How about those?

The court needs to decide on whether this is or is not going to be part of this lawsuit. They wish to confer amongst themselves; we go out and smoke.

14:00. Next. Can these documents – OTs and NOTS – be considered to be published? Now, that is a question. Material is considered to be ‘published’ once it gets spread beyond the ‘inner’ or ‘limited’ circle of people in the immediate surroundings of the author. CoS argues that they have only spread the OTs/NOTS within a “limited circle”, and that they thus cannot be considered to have been ‘published’, that is: distributed to the public.

Then again, Zenon argues, these same materials are in Saint Hill, in Clearwater, in Flag, in other places; CoS itself claims that thousands and thousands of people have read and studied them. Zenon had filed an attachment (three CoS ad brochures and two magazines) that claim that many have studied — and all can study — the NOTS. “Why don’t you come to Flag and improve your life? Study New OT5 at Flag!” one says. This brochure is sent to all CoS-members. All are ‘invited’ to come and study OT5. “You can come to Flag clear and go home OT!” states another leaflet. CoS-magazine ‘Source’ has a price-list for OTs and NOTS, broken down into membership prices and non-membership prices. He points at the completions list. So many people passed OT2, so many OT3; so many passed NOTS this or NOTS that. Some of these successful students are from the US, others from Canada or Europe. Elsewhere it says: “We produce more than one thousand OTs per year!” Or: “Advanced Org LA is really booming! So many Class VIII Auditors produced!” Or: “Become an OT3!” They say they ‘make’ a thousand OTs per year as well. If the audience CoS here states it caters to does not constitute more than a ‘limited circle’, Zenon continues, then what the fuck does?– Nice touch, Zenon, to throw their own promotion material back at them.

[Zenon couldn’t find his copy of ‘Source’, so he goes over to the bench and borrows the court’s, and shows it to them, standing there and reading aloud. After a couple of minutes, they invite him to try the overhead projector. Don’t work, of course. You need transparent sheets for them, not glossy paper. So Magnusson goes up to the bench as well.]

Meanwhile, Scientology claims that Zenon has distributed to more than a limited circle by handing them in to parliament, which consists of 349 people only. Aren’t those two arguments contradicting one another? You can’t have your cake and eat it, is what he says.

And RTC claims damages. But haven’t high Dutch CoS-members stated that their members would never ever take material from the net instead of from their own church? So, they wouldn’t sell less, would they? So, why claim damages?

Break. In session, and in ARC as well I assume. McShane hated this last bit.

After the break. The first witness is going to be heard. It’s Ms Alexandersson again, who testified in Monday’s court case too. Same testimony, same comparison, same nutty NOTS; it’s just that we have different judges, and a different court case. This time however she will be prepared. She will know about the cut-up NOTS and know that RTC has claimed my article as theirs.

17:00. Zenon enters the smoking room. “We finally agreed upon one thing,” he says. “RTC has by now admitted that attachment 126 is for perhaps 85% scrambled text and that the rest is Borkified versions.” He starts lighting his cigarette. The intercom ding-dongs an announcement: Zenon is called back into the courtroom. He sighs, drops his cigarette, and goes back in again.

Later on, we get the full story. The notary — who had been comparing the Nutty NOTS to material RTC claims is original NOTS — was meticulous beyond boring. Even the court tried to rush her. At one point Zenon proposed that she would simply state how many pages (out of 700) were similar, defining ‘similar’ as in allowing for five or six places where different spelling or interpunction was used. Even this didn’t speed Alexandersson’s snail pace.

After tedious and boring hours — Zenon almost fell asleep — RTC is finally prepared to admit that, considering the perl’ed NOTS and my article, 180 out of 200 files in Attachment 126 are scrambled NOTS. RTC also admitted that no scrambled and relocated portion of paragraphs is longer than three, at most four sentences. Then again, they maintained that they had copyright over the scrambled NOTS. And they insisted that this copyright had been infringed upon.

Wow. These guys are crazy, and want to make copyright jump through every hoop.

Five minutes later, we are allowed to re-enter as well.

Magnusson and Zenon are arguing. The president sometimes intervenes. Suddenly, it is visible what a lawsuit is all about: two warring parties who need someone else to settle their fight. Magnusson and Zenon can not, will not, agree upon anything. This case is exemplary.

They even argue about the amount time each party needs, will take or may have. RTC has lots of witnesses they want to call, for instance the bailiff, who is supposed to testify as to what he found on a diskette of Zenon’s. They argue about what was on his hard disk and this diskette. The diskette was used to copy something on from Zenon’s hard disk and was then compared, and found to be similar to attachment 37 — alleged NOTS.

The court, to Zenon: “Can you accept that the material on this diskette was the same as attachment 37?” Zenon: “No. The stuff on my hard disk is attachment 37. It is not another instance, it is the same material: the print came from that file., I printed it for my own personal use. Now, I know what was on my hard disk, I know what is in attachment 37, and I will gladly admit that those are indeed the same. We don’t need a witness for that. But if RTC wants to bring in this diskette — who am I to know what they might have done with it?” RTC wants the witness to be heard anyway. The court sighs.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the May 22,1998 – June 3, 1998 sessions. Next: You know that you are being sued by Scientology when….]

Settlement talks: to want a pie and eat it

Stockholm, Tuesday, 26 May 1998

[Previous installment: ‘The material’, or: ‘NOTS? Which NOTS?’ Note: This is a mixed issue: part of it is written by Zenon, and part by Karin. The main reason for that is that most of the day Zenon was in a closed courtroom doing settlement talks, while Karin was closed in in a smoking room.]

This court case is the main one in RTC vs Panoussis. It deals with the question whether Zenon has infringed upon Scientology’s, or rather, RTC’s copyright of L. Ron Hubbard’s text when he had the OTs on his homepage and posted the NOTS. This case will be heard by three judges; one of them has been concerning himself with it for one year and a half already.

Zenon:

I had met the entire scientology delegation the day before, on my TRO case, and I had taken the opportunity to ask McShane what he thought about a possible settlement; our meeting is described in UC #2. So on Tuesday, when the “main” case was opened and the chairman asked in a rather imperative tone if there was any possibility that the parties could reach a settlement, I was in position to raise my shoulders and say that yes, I proposed that yesterday, but RTC seems quite unwilling. Magnusson said that my conditions were utterly unreasonable.

The chairman was not prepared to dismiss the matter that easily and I, on my part, was not prepared to let Magnusson call me unreasonable. I turned the tables and said that I will listen to any settlement proposal that RTC might want to put forward. This opened for formal settlement discussions, that the court was not only prepared to assist, but actually very eager to see come through.

Settlement discussions are not part of the court proceedings, so they are not open to the public unless both parties agree they should be. RTC did not agree and the courtroom was cleared. The judge that has handled the case during the 1,5 year preparation was to handle the settlement talks as well.

Karin:

This was the weirdest day of all. The public was let into the courtroom and, almost immediately afterward, requested to vacate it. This happened a couple of times, to the point where everybody in the audience started to feel a bit dizzy and believed they were being trained in order to take the part of the puppets you’ll find in weather boxes. In. Out. Sunshine. Rain. In. Sun. Out. Thunder.

Zenon’s face reflected the many changes in the weather. Whenever there was a break in the negotiations, or when the judges wanted to speak with each party separately, he joined us in the smoking room and attempted to briefly explain how things stood. Rain. Sun. Unsettled, mainly.

Zenon:

Being the plaintiff, RTC was first to be subjected to pressure from the court to settle. I don’t know what they were told, but they looked less than happy when they left the courtroom and I entered it for my one-to-one discussion with the judge. I guess I looked less than happy myself after it.

The point of the court was that both parties had something to lose by insisting on a ruling, that both parties could gain something by settling and that the main characteristic of a settlement is that it leaves both parties dissatisfied, albeit less dissatisfied than what they risk to be if the case comes to a ruling. I have to admit they are right on this.

I put forward the same proposal I had given McShane the previous day (incidentally the same one I put forward last year): RTC admits that the OTs and NOTS are open to fair use and I admit copyright infringement, pay damages and treat the OTs and NOTS with the same amount of respect (in the copyright sense) that I treat any other text with. I was confronted with RTC’s counterproposal: that I admit infringement and they let me off damages and legal costs.

I explained that (1) I didn’t publish the disputed texts in order to avoid paying damages because if that had been my goal, I would have abstained from publishing them in the first place and (2) given the fact that I am basically broke, I won’t be paying any damages or legal costs anyway, so there’s nothing in for me in RTC’s proposal.

There was evidently a hope for a settlement on both sides, but not a basis for it. So the court brought us together, face to face with each-other and with all three judges. Let’s argue.

We did. The chairman took the initiative, “took” as in “categorically refused to let anyone else have it”. Both Magnusson and myself were quite prone to escalate arguments into dead-ends, so the chairman wouldn’t let us argue with each-other, but rather take over and apply pressure to both sides to decrease their demands.

Karin:

As time progressed, the critics in the smoking room became increasingly nervous. Joe Harrington was having his birthday. Somebody started singing him a birthday song and before he knew it, he was treated to anniversary songs in Swedish, Danish, Dutch and English. Whenever the door would open, we would expectantly turn our eyes, hoping it was Zenon.

The Scientologists in the corridor were increasingly nervous, too. There was much pacing. Hardly anybody spoke, let alone sang. Some lawyers leafed through papers. Most Scientologists simply sat or paced, eyes vacantly staring into space. Then again, they are trained to stare hard. So perhaps they were practising Training Routines while we were practising birthday songs.

I went out a couple of times and mingled with the Scientologists. All refused to even acknowledge my presence — except Cowboy Boots, that is, who tried to strike up a conversation about my t-shirt. Church of Euthanasia. Yes, ordered via the net. I expected him to flinch at the word ‘net’, but he didn’t. I jotted down the url for him.

Zenon:

At some point, RTC in the person of McShane accepted in principle that they could concede certain limited use by the public of the OTs and NOTS. The discussion turned into how that could be put into an agreement between RTC and me, that would be binding for RTC towards the public. At that moment everything looked bright: if we agreed in essence, putting the agreement on paper should pose no problem. I was naive, and so was the court: RTC had no intention to give away anything at all.

Karin:

Zenon entered the smoking room, fuming without the aide of a Camel. ‘Guess what,’ he said. ‘They will allow fair use. But to me only!’ And before he’d taken three puffs of a freshly lighted cigarette he would be ordered back in again.

‘We’re this close to an agreement,’ he would say. Or: ‘Fuck, they are redefining terms again!’ And once, during a slightly longer break: ‘I simply don’t understand. McShane seems prepared to accept the current settlement terms, the court is obviously pressing him to accept, and yet he doesn’t. It is as if something were holding him back. And he knows he will lose the case in as far as their claim that this is unpublished material is concerned.’

‘Perhaps it’s not something that is holding him back, but somebody,’ I conjectured. ‘He anwers to Miscavage. And RTC’s license with CST binds him to sue under all circumstances. Perhaps he’d like to strike a deal with you but simply cannot.’

‘I’ll ask him,’ said Zenon, and left the smoking room again, this time to talk with McShane in the corridor, without any judges present.

Ten minutes later, I could no longer wait. I went out as well.

And found Zenon in the corridor, surrounded by Scientologists. I joined them. McShane was standing face to face with Zenon, upper body bent towards him, shoulders hunched, looking terribly red in the face. He was angry, arrogantly angry. ‘Bullshit,’ he said, in a most derogatory tone, ‘bullshit.’ ‘But why do you think I’m doing this?’ Zenon asked. ‘Why do you think all of us are doing this? Do you really believe that we do this just to harass you?’ McShane threw me a sideways glance and returned his gaze at Zenon. My presence there obviously confirmed his beliefs that yes, there was this major conspiracy against Scientology going on and that we were partaking in it. ‘Bullshit!’ he repeated. ‘It is to harass us. That is your only motive,’ and for one moment I truly believed he was going to spit on the court’s carpet. He spoke as if Z was vermin, a despicable entity, an irritating insect that needed to be trampled and crushed and utterly wiped out, and as if he, and he alone, had the power to do so. Yet his facial expression and his posture belied him. McShane was arrogant, no doubt about it, but very unsettled as well.

It turned out that the question Zenon had posed to McShane was: ‘Is there anybody else you need to consult on this settlement matter? Do you need anybody’s permission to sign an agreement?’

‘You’re looking at the man,’ McShane had proudly answered (thereby, and that is rather interesting, belying both Vorn’s and Small’s testimony of the following day).

‘Then what is the reason why you don’t?’ Z had continued. And that is when McShane had exploded.

Before they could finish their argument, Zenon was called back in. Five minutes later, McShane followed suit.

What was keeping McShane from agreeing to a settlement, we later decided, was L. Ron Hubbard. Elron had said that OTs and NOTS are to be considered unpublished, and so they shall be. You cannot argue with source, and you must obey the Tech.

Zenon:

For every formulation proposed by me or the court, Magnusson would have an objection and introduce a new reservation. At first they would accept that “the material” could be subject to fair use. Then “fair use” was not any normal fair use. Next, they would accept that individuals are allowed to make copies for personal use, but only if the original used to make the copy was legal. “Legal”, as it turned out, was to be defined by RTC, probably as “RTC’s own copies only”, their standard claim being that all copies not in their own possession – even the ones in this same Stockholm court that are being lent out on a daily basis – are illegal by definition. Then “personal use” had to be re-defined to mean strictly personal use, so that the normal right to spread a personal use copy to family and friends would be excluded. Consequently, a copy for personal use could not be used as an original to another copy for personal use. In short, RTC was only prepared to allow the public to make copies of originals that are not available, and such copies could be used for nothing more than their original could be used for.

I was under just as severe a pressure from the court as the RTC was, so I went along and accepted many more limitations to my original proposal than I would ever have been happy with. Yet that didn’t help. Every time I went along with yet another limitation, Magnusson put forward yet another reservation. At the end, when I exploded and refused to discuss settlements any more, RTC’s proposal of a settlement agreement stood as follows:

Panoussis admits copyright infringement.
RTC accepts every use of the material that is legal.

Taste this. They accept every use that is legal. As if they had any alternative to accepting legal use. They keep their position that no use whatsoever is legal, and then “accept” the rest – i.e. nothing. And they expect me to sign an agreement that would constitute a statement on my part that it is up to RTC to accept legal use or not, and that we should all be grateful to them that they do. In practice they were asking me to sign an admission that they stand above the law, but are so generous as to concede to abide by it anyway. End of settlement talks.

Yet, I don’t think they were satisfied with the outcome. McShane looked really pressed during the talks. At times he looked like somebody between a hard place and a rock, just short of being in agony, in all contrast to what you would expect from a high OT representative of the almighty RTC, in court against a lowly copyright terrorist. He looked as if he thought that both his alternatives – settle and not settle – were equally bad, and he was anyway forced to take the predestined road to self-destruction.

At 13.54 the settlement talks broke down definitely and the normal hearing of the case was resumed. The public was let in, Magnusson made his opening statement. At 16.45 it was my turn, and I had no idea where to begin; I was as badly prepared as one can be. Thanks to the delay the settlement talks brought about, I was able to postpone my opening statement to the next day. Had it not been for this, I’d have been in very deep shit.

We left court and bought binders. A lot of them. And started sorting out the paperwork.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the May 22,1998 – June 3, 1998 sessions. Next: Brochures with a bite.]

“The material”, or: “NOTS? Which NOTS?”

Stockholm, Monday, 25 May 1998

[Previous installment: Zenon does research.] And of course, during the weekend, both of us worked less than we wanted (and needed) to. There were friends to see, places to go, sleep to catch up with. I did some work on a play I’m supposed to have finished by the end of the month, Zenon did some work on the computer we would need so badly in the upcoming week.

On Monday morning we left early. Or at least tried to. There was no free taxi to be found in the whole of Stockholm, it would appear: Z was on the phone for almost half an hour and then finally decided that he would try to find one on the street. It was a quarter to nine by then; the court session was to start at 9:30, traffic was still busy and we needed to buy extension electricity cables for our gear.

9:20. We arrive and dump & connect some of our stuff in the courtroom which then needs to be cleared of anything human, so that the judge can make a proper entrance. We walk through the corridor, to the smoking room, passing some people who stand there, talking. A couple of steps removed from them, standing apart from the rest, is McShame, president of RTC, the plaintiffs. I recognise him immediately: he was present at my lawsuit. He recognises us, too, without missing a beat. We pass him and look him in the face. He looks straight back at us and says, dead-pan voice, only slightly rising his tone while uttering the last syllable: “Panoussis…. Spaink….” We should have acknowledged him by saying “McShane…” using this same flat tone, but we didn’t.

Court opens. There are seven Scientologists who flock together on one side of the courtroom. Lots of dark suits. The only one who stands out is McShane himself, the only one in a light grey suit and the only one who doesn’t wear glasses. Next to him is one of Magnusson’s colleagues; he is to act as interpreter. Tarja Vulto is there: Swedish OSA. Immediately behind the lawyer/translator is an American wearing cowboy boots, a four-day stubble and a partially opened shirt, who will often lean forward when something interesting occurs, in order to catch the translator’s words as he relays them to McShane. (We will later learn that this is hired lawyer William Hart.) There is a small man with a rodent appearance: short dark hair; Swedish. Another man: blond, nearly bald, Swedish. And another American dark hair, striking tie. Plus me, since the power outlet is on that side of the room.

There are two people who take seats in what would become the critic’s section of the audience. Later, more people join them. Bid (Birgitta Dagnell), Swedish a.r.s.-regular and former Scientology member –; Anti-Cult, a.r.s.-regular and also from Sweden; Karsten, from the Dialog Centre in Copenhagen (which provides information about cults and offer support to former cult members and their families — “I thought you were a CoS-goon,” he later tells me); and, much to our surprise and delight, Joe Harrington from the US. And us, from the Netherlands. Oooh! This was turning out to be an international suppressive convention.

When we re-enter the courtroom, the judge is sitting there. As it turns out, Ingrid Forsström is indeed presiding the court. She carries a formal, severe and most attentive expression on her face. Her attitude makes it overtly clear that she is not going to buy anything from anybody. (Especially not a bridge.) She wants information; she wants it to be presented to her in a precise, concise and clear-cut manner; she wants answers, and she is not to be toyed with. (Somehow she is the personification of what I have always imagined Judge Brinkema to be like.) The clerk is the man we had met earlier, last Friday, while we were going through the sealed documents. He smiles at us.

This case concerns itself whether or not Z has violated the Temporary Restraining Order he was subjected to in1996, for instance when he handed in copies of the NOTS to parliament, to the administrative court, and to the Court of Appeals. Magnusson stipulates that Z has violated the TRO. Z maintains he hasn’t; that besides, it is most unclear to which materials the term “the materials” the TRO bar him from publishing exactly refer to, and moreover that he hasn’t published these NOTS after getting the TRO, but just provided the three institutes mentioned with copies. The case is a semi-penal one: while the alleged copyright infringement is a civil case, violating a TRO is not, but it could cost Z 50.000 crowns.

The judge asks Magnusson a great deal of questions. Magnusson may be well versed in law (although Z believes he isn’t), but he surely isn’t endowed with the gift of the gab. He stutters, he hesitates, he sometimes cringes when asked to give a clarification — and the judge wanted a lot of them –, he flushes when being rebuked or proven wrong, needs to look up stuff in his files and binders almost continuously, and generally does not strike one as being very effective or convincing. His definition of presenting a coherent and motivated argument seems to be to refer to documents, to mention dates and numbers, and to subsequently start leafing through files. Magnusson refers to postings, to Z’s statements on the net, and to his generally ‘provocative’ behaviour.

While the judge is directing her questions at Magnusson, the lawyer/translator has an easy job. When he does whisper something in McShane’s ear, McShane never looks at him but keeps staring right in front of himself, nodding slowly. His face is devoid of all expression.

The judge now turns her attention towards Z. He needs to explain a lot about the net: the difference between e-mail and postings; that the name of the sender of e-mail or postings cannot be taken at face-value, because anybody can put any name there; that therefore, one needs to scrutinise the headers of postings and e-mail; that even these can be faked and that therefore a more solid proof of authorship, such as an ISP log, is needed when accusations are brought before court; and that whatever somebody says on the net does not automatically reflect on their actual behaviour, be it past, present or future, because words and acts are two separate things and that moreover, everybody has the right to lie or to not do what they said they would do.

10:30. Break. We — by now ‘we’ is Anti-Cult, Karsten, Z, a journalist and me — make a dash for the smoking room. When we open the door, we discover the little room to be crammed with Scientologists and their lawyers. We enter. You want a smoke or you don’t, eh, and all of us are heavy addicts. Immediately, the plaintiff and their representatives clear the room. (Could they only clear the planet as easily!) “All of you running away, for only two SP’s?” Z teases them.

10:45. It’s Z’s turn to present his arguments. While Scientology refers to all materials — the NOTS he posted to a.r.s. and got the TRO over, the NOTS-pack he handed over to parliament, the NOTS-pack filed at the administrative court, the NOTS-pack sealed by the Court of Appeals (Attachment 126) — simply as “the NOTS” or “the material” and has identified each and every of these packs to be their copyrighted material, Z argues that these purportedly identical packs (which, in RTC vs Panoussis, are each referred to by their file attachment number) do, as a matter of fact, differ. Some even differ widely. The translator/lawyer tries to keep track of Z’s argument, jotting down file numbers, and goes cabalistic on McShane. I see notes such as:

or

McShane seems a tad upset. The lawyer/translator is by now slightly raising his voice. Instead of staring in front of him as per usual, McShane looks straight at Z.

Z postulates that it is impossible to determine exactly which materials are “the” materials, since the various packs differ. What makes such a determination even more difficult is that Scientology appears to be claiming everything to be theirs, as long as there are a few recognisable Hubbard-sentences in it,s I catch McShane making an ugly face towards Z.

12:00. Another break. Bid and Joe join us when we have lunch.

Shortly after lunch, there’s a typical May-25th scene. The issue at stake is the masked NOTS. Magnusson maintains that they are identical to attachment 24, 37 and 126. The judge poses Magnusson a question (sorry, didn’t catch that. My Swedish is too bad). Magnusson hesitates, is silent for a while, and then proceeds to give a short answer. “How do you know?” Z interrupts. “Yes,” the judge says, redirecting her stern and unwavering gaze at Magnusson, “how do you know?”

13:30. The notary who made a comparison between “the material”, in this case, the purportedly original NOTS, and file attachment 126, and then claimed the latter material was the same as the former and thus copyrighted by RTC, is called in as a witness.

Since this part of today’s session is surely dealing with actual quotes taken from “the material”, the doors will close and the audience is requested to vacate the room. Magnusson, McShane, the translator/lawyer, Z and the court are the only ones allowed to hear what Birgitta Alexandersson, the notary, has to relay.

We leave. As it turns out, we have the smoking room to ourselves; it will remain ours in the days to follow. The Scientologists either hang around in the corridors or sit in the court’s cafeteria. We wait. Karsten entertains us with myriad stories, Joe explains why he dislikes big cities, we make lot of ARSCC and Prozac jokes and wait. Oh and we smoke, of course.

A break during the closed hearing allows Z a smoke and him and me a short conference. The notary/witness claims to have made a random selection, in this way arriving at seven NOTS from attachment 126, which she then proceeded to compare to RTC’s purportedly “originals”, and found that yes, they were the same. I have seen attachment 126 and know what is amiss with it. Attachment 126 is most certainly not an original NOTS pack.

We’re only allowed back in the court room after two hours, perhaps three, of closed hearing. As it turns out, Z was able to challenge the notary statement. Many, if not most, of the NOTS included in attachment 126 are, erm, let me put it this way, mocked up. There are Borkified versions of purportedly original NOTS. (Yes, RTC claimed these to be their own.) There are Soul-Bro’ified versions of purportedly original NOTS. (Yes, RTC claimed these to be their own.) There are cut-up and re-montaged versions of purportedly original NOTS. (Yes, RTC claimed these to be their own.)

I myself have seen at least ten versions of NOTS 1, each one different, all of them making no sense, not even in the Hubbardian meaning of the word, because the order of paragraphs, the order of sentences and sometimes even parts of sentences have been completely reshuffled. (Hmmm. Didn’t Alice end a courtcase in which the prosecutor demanded that her head be cut off, simply by calling her opponents ‘a deck of cards’?) Yes, RTC claimed these montaged version of NOTS 1 to be their own. “Look,” they had said during the closed session, “this sentence here” (pointing at a file included in attachment 126) “is exactly the same as this sentence there” (pointing at a purportedly original NOTS 1). At this point, everybody — the notary/witness, the lawyer/translator, Magnusson, McShane, Zenon — had gathered around the judge’s table and were leaning over her shoulder. “But the sentence preceding it and the sentence following it, are not the same as in your supposed original,” Zenon pointed out. “Yeah but well…” McShane said, “those sentences appear elsewhere in the same scrambled NOTS.”

They even claimed (as we found out last Friday), copyright to one of my articles. In the list the notary had provided Magnusson and the court with, it says: “File Attachment 126, no. 143, OT III Course”. This file 126/143 was however most certainly not the original OT3 course but my summary of and comment on OT3, the one that has been on my homepage ever since February 1996. “But it contains Hubbard quotes,” McShane said. “Quotes,” Z repeated. “They are even ascribed to Hubbard. But the copyright of this article, of the entire article itself, resides with Karin Spaink. It even says so at the end. It’s not copyrighted by RTC but by her.” “But we’re suing her over that,” McShane argued. “Until now, you’ve lost,” Z kindly reminded him, “and the Dutch court has approved of this article and has stated that it is not to be considered a copyright infringement.”

[I wonder whether I should sue RTC over falsely claiming copyright over something I wrote.]

16:00 or so. Scientology was to call another witness — a Scientology-member who was going to state that Z had handed out copies of the NOTS on the street — but RTC by now decides that they will drop this witness. Perhaps they were afraid Z would grill him about which NOTS Z allegedly handed out. Or perhaps they were scared that Z would ask the witness to explain how he ascertained that these NOTS were original. (Z was really looking forward to the witness saying: “well, my superiors told me”.) Or perhaps this Scientology member had by now defected. You never know. Shit happens.

Time for both parties’ final plea.

Magnusson is first. By now McShane is getting a sentence-by-sentence translation and is far more interested than he was earlier this morning; he even sits askance in his chair to not miss a word. The cowboy-boots man listens closely as well. Magnusson is as eloquent as usual, that is: not. Z listens attentively, sometimes making a note or asking for a clarification.

Zenon’s turn. He argues. Calmly. He speaks. Rather fluently. He talks again about the net and about the NOTS — “the NOTS? Which ‘the’ NOTS?” — and argues that giving a copy of the NOTS — any NOTS — to parliament doesn’t equal publishing or distributing it, and so on and so forth; he uses a certain amount of rhetoric, but presents his arguments in a concise, and it would seem convincing way. Then again, I’m prejudiced.

The court wraps up. How much will each party request as for legal costs if they win, she wants to know. “30.000 kronor,” Magnusson says; which translates to plm. 4000 US$, a very small amount compared to what RTC has requested in the US in similar cases, although for Swedish courts, it’s much in cases like these. The court asks Z how much he requests. “Erm, some copies, and phone calls, and other stuff…. let me see…. Well, 500 kronor.” (Equals 70 US$.)

He’s not in it for the money, that’s for sure.

The court adjourns. Verdict due on June 8th.

17:30. We’re outside the courtroom. I’m disconnecting (now don’t you take me wrong. There were just so many plugs to undo: Z’computer, mine, an MD recorder, a microphone, extension cables) and repacking the gear. McShane walks by, and Z asks whether he could have a word with him. (He’d asked earlier, during lunch. “Of course,” McShane had answered.) “Public or private?” Z asks. “I don’t care,” McShane answers. They go to the next couch and sit down.

Z restates his previous proposal. If RTC would admit to the NOTS having been legally published — and thereby subject them to all the privileges, rules and exceptions to copyright law, not just the ones they like; meaning: granting the right to individuals to keep and make copies for their private use, and allow the right to quote — he would gladly admit to having committed copyright infringement. He is prepared to pay a symbolical tort for this infringement and both parties will pay their own legal costs. McShane flatly refuses. “But take a pragmatic point of view,” Z says. “By accepting such a settlement, you could bow out graciously while you still have room to move and even claim — you do value your public image, that much I know — that I have committed copyright infringement. You may even get some money out of me.”

“But if you do not accept, this will happen. I might lose part of tomorrow’s case. You might lose part of tomorrow’s case. Nobody knows. It is not up to us. But what I will surely win is the court stating that the NOTS have been legally published. You might even lose more than that. Now of course you will appeal this part of the decision anyway, even if it is the only part you lose, and perhaps then you can undo it. But meanwhile, people are in their full right when they abide by this ruling. They will start quoting. They will have legal copies. They will start quoting more. And there’s nothing you can do about it.”

“And if you win this whole case, you’re perhaps even worse off. People will get angry over my losing this case, and I predict that more havoc will ensue.”

“Now, if you yourself, of your own free will, without the court forcing you, grant others this right, you will re-earn some of the respect you’ve lost, prevent another stage of escalation, and earn yourself some peace. What do you say?” [All this is my summary. Don’t bind Z to this.]

Again, McShane refuses. “What do you win if you do continue?” Z insists. “There’s no money to be gotten out of me. I’m broke. I will not pay you. I cannot even pay you.”

McShane refuses. Scientology has basic tenets of belief, and keeping the NOTS secret is part of that, he explains. “But apart from the fact that they are being spread via the net and that secrecy has already been broken, if it ever existed, and apart from the fact that by now this secrecy has become legally void — there’s copies from parliament, from the court that everybody can request; as a matter of fact, one member of today’s court audience bought a copy of a NOTS pack here today — you will only get yourself more adulterated copies if you do not admit to your NOTS having been published and putting out an original version yourself. Everybody will attempt to post everything they can get their hands on, they will claim it’s yours, and you have no way to control that,” Z argued. [Perhaps they want adulterated copies floating around, I tend to think. That way only RTC, and Scientology, can exert this hold over their followers and are able to disavow anything else somebody else claims to be an original OT or NOTS.]

“And it will remain a sport to find them and publish them on the net and you will never rid yourself of this struggle. Don’t you realise that by being so rigid, you create your own opposition? I’m offering you a way out of that. The more you fight, the more opposition you create.”

I join them. Z explains to McShane that he had stumbled upon my homepages, had found this fight regarding the Fishman Affidavit interesting, read up, and had decided to join. Out of which sprung this case, which has by now already resulted in open copies of NOTS in court and in parliament. McShane seemed to disbelieve this. It can’t have been an accident that Z started his homepage; there must have been more to it than that. I explain that there wasn’t; nor was there in my case; there was nothing except Scientology’s own utter rudeness which had gotten me into this net fight.

We argue a bit more. And then leave.

Karsten, Bid, Joe, Z and I go for a drink. Then we have another one. It turns into dinner. Joe can’t get enough of this image of Zenon all by himself fighting RTC and have them all worked up and nervous and … and … At twelve, we get back home, get our asses into bed and fall asleep.

Erratum:

Previously I wrote, concerning my recently acquired status as biträde, that I was presented with a TRO regarding my disclosure of whatever I learned during my study of the closed files: “the first thing that officially happened to me while in Sweden was that the court presented me with a Temporary Restraining Order”. That was a Restraining Order, not a Temporary one.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the May 22,1998 – June 3, 1998 sessions. Next: To want to eat a pie and have it.]