Zenon's court case: day 7 - Carrying water from the desert to the sea
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:14:46 +0100, you wrote:
Carrying water from the desert to the sea
Stockholm, Friday January 26, 2001
WHEN WE ARRIVE AT COURT, two women approach us. Zenon shakes hands with one of them; they speak for a short while, Zenon introduces her - it is the bailiff who was responsible for the raid in 1996 - and then she hands him an envelope. As it turns out, it is a demand for outstanding tax bills.
While discussing this - I am sure that Scientology has sicked the bailiff on him, while Zenon thinks that she came of her own accord - we walk inside. After a few meters, a man approaches Zenon and flashes a badge. I can't see the badge and for a second I fear that this is a police officer who is going to arrest Zenon for god-knows-what; perhaps Scientology has filed some weird complaint against him of the kind that are filed against US critics all the time. The man seems angry and grabs Zenon's arm. Zenon calms him somewhat, and they have a short discussion; then the man hands Zenon an envelope too and a paper for him to sign. It turns out to be *another* demand, this one for his study loan. The idiotic part is that both bailiffs came from the same office. (Which also means that they sent three people in order to hand over two letters. Isn't that a tad inefficient?)
This is no coincidence. I am sure that somebody has tipped somebody or has pulled some strings. This must be Scientology's revenge for Zenon's new witnesses, and for his claim that McShane has come very close to perjury.
ZENON SUBMITS TO the court that McShane has not been telling the truth and that he can prove as much. Magnusson, of course, objects: isn't this the exact same evidence that was at one point rejected by the court because Zenon didn't file his briefs in time? Quite some discussion ensues. Zenon argues that yes, indeed, that was the case, and he would not have been able to bring up this evidence *nor* would he have had a need to do so if it hadn't been for the fact that in Tuesday's deposition of McShane, Magnusson *himself* suddenly brought in this new claim that no money was charged for the NOTs. But since Magnusson has brought up this claim, it is Zenon's goddamn right to refute it - especially since McShane lied in his testimony.
Magnusson acts all upset over this vicious suggestion that his most honourable client hasn't been telling the truth, and tells the court so, with this embarrassed and shy smile of his that by now I have come to recognise as a performance, meaning "I apologise to the court that I had to bring this clown Panoussis into their respected presence, so would you please disregard what he is saying right now, it is simply *too* stupid," or something to that effect.
And then Zenon explodes with cold anger. Didn't Magnusson bring in *four* witnesses that have to quite some degree disqualified themselves? Didn't we have Small hiding the fact that he was actively employed by RTC when he rushed to their defence? Didn't we have Mikael Nyström who had said that Usenet postings could not be falsified, and who now admitted that they could - actually, that some people sit with their hands right in the cookie jar? Didn't we have the notary public vowing that she had made a random selection of the Monkey NOTs, while now it transpired that she selected only those Monkey NOTs that she "recognised" as infringing? And on top of that, now we have Magnusson's *main* witness, actually his client, evading the truth and perhaps downward lying to us. For god's sake: doesn't Zenon then has a right to prove *his* point, especially when it concerns something that Magnusson has only recently brought in?
The Chair seems inclined to see things Zenon's way on this, but is justifiably concerned about the court's schedule. Hearing new witnesses will disrupt the proceedings, it would mean that the case needs to be adjourned and would proceed well into next week. Besides, there is a procedural problem: our first and main witness is Italian, and according to Italian law, witnesses cannot testify via telephone. Thus, she would need to be flown over.
The court would like to know all names of the witnesses; yesterday, Zenon only filed the name of the first one. I scrutinise McShane's face when Zenon lists the people willing to testify:
- Maria Pia Gardini from Italy; a Class IX Auditor who was invoiced immediately for the NOTs; no deferred payment. Besides, she knows the material rather well. She is adamant that most of the NOTs are included in OT6 and OT7.
- Michael Philip Pattinson, from Los Angeles, California. [I see McShane's face sagging. Then he notices that I saw it, and for the next ten minutes he averts his eyes.] Michael Pattinson can testify that huge part of the NOTs pack is included in OT6 and OT7.
- Karl Braunsteiner, from Austria. Karl has done OT6 and later on saw the NOTs on the Internet. He can testify that a huge part of them is included in OT6.
Magnusson claims that all of this is not relevant. The parishioners do not pay for the material but for the course as a *whole*. The Chair intervenes: Zenon has a solid point. What if we put McShane in the witness stand again and ask him these questions once more? Magnusson can't very well oppose this. There we go….
MCSHANE TAKES THE witness chair. The atmosphere in the court room is tense, very tense. We all know what is at stake.
Z: Let's first clarify definitions. For the purpose of this deposition, "NOTs" is all the material included in attachment 37 and *nothing* else. That is what I define as NOTs.
McShane: That is not the church's definition.
Z: That is irrelevant. In this interrogation, *I* define NOTs as exhibit 37.
Magnusson intervenes. How do we know that these are the original NOTs? [Dork. He has been claiming that they are all along.]
Z: I am talking about the NOTs such as they are in attachment 37, from page 24 and on. Mr. McShane, have the NOTs, either in their entirety or partly, *ever* been part of any other course except for the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: [speaking slowly, and very aware of what he is saying] There are parts of NOTs, the description of NOTs, the principles of NOTs, that are contained in OT6. The actual issues themselves, the bulletins, that we call works, are not in OT6. But some of the principles are contained in OT6. Because OT6 is on the same subject. But you have to understand that NOTs, the NOTs, teaches a Class IX Auditor how to deliver those services, those processes, to a member.
Z: I want to know about concrete text mass. Are *any* of these NOTs texts part of another course than the Class IX Auditor Course?
McShane: There are parts that are in OT6.
Z: And in OT7?
McShane: [pause; he hesitates] No.
Z: How do you know? I asked you on Monday or Tuesday what level you yourself had attained; you answered that you were OT6, and I asked you specifically if everything up to OT6 was your personal knowledge and nothing above, and you confirmed that.
McShane: [pauses] I, ehm, I don't exactly know what that, ehm, question was, what I said then. I know the texts of OT7.
Z: Have you seen my latest brief?
Z: [picks up that brief] Have you *read* this brief? I expect that it was translated for you?
McShane: [nods twice]
Z: I would like you to comment upon the list of the re-use of NOTs that is included in that brief. And please bear in mind that I am not only asking you about current times but also about the past.
[From here on, Zenon uses what Scientology would most likely refer to as "Tone 40": he is precise, insistent, commanding, demanding, and his voice makes it clear that he won't be fooled with. For the first time during this whole court procedure, McShane suddenly answers in broken sentences. Again, my transcript is more or less verbatim.]
Z: Has *any* part of the NOTs in attachment 37, i.e. any part of the material from page 24 and onward, *at any time* been part of *any* course whatsoever other than the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: Yes, some parts of that material are used in OT6 and OT7. But I have read your list in which you claim that some, eh, 20 or 30 NOTs are part of OT6 or OT7. That is not true.
Z: In that case, let's go through them one by one and assess which ones *are* part of OT6 or OT7. To start with, are any parts of NOTs series 1 such as it appears in exhibit 37 part of any other course than the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: I would have to have the OT6 course to compare them with and I don't have that with me.
Z: Can you say approximately how much text mass of attachment 37 is included or has ever been included in other courses than the Class IX Auditor Course?
McShane: Ehm, in order to do that, I would need to make a comparison and I can't do that here. [hesitates] There are texts, there are parts of these texts, in OT7. But there is more in NOTs than there is in exhibit 37.
Z: The rest of the NOTs are not interesting; they are not part of this case. We are *only* talking about the NOTs material in exhibit 37 here.
Z: How many people did partake in OT6 and in OT7, approximately?
McShane: [pause] I would estimate probably some 5,000 to 7,000.
Z: These pro forma invoices, can you describe what is on them?
McShane: They are meant for employees, and it says something to the effect of, the persons name, what course the person is taking, and the worth, the value of the course. And the person promises that if he breaks the contract he will pay that money. It is an internal church procedure, and its purpose is to prevent somebody to join staff in order to get the courses for free. So it tells the person: it is part of your job that you get this for free, but if you leave without fulfilling your contract, your have to pay.
Z: For how long are these contracts?
McShane: Which ones?
Z: The Sea Org contracts for instance, of which Class IX Auditors are members.
[Comment: it is interesting to see how long it takes McShane to reply that Sea Org members sign a billion year contract. Yet, Zenon has already put this bit of information in his Wednesday January 25 brief. The court knows.]
M: The Sea Org is eternal within the church. More religions, other religions also … like the Jesuits, or certain religions have, and it's the staff who dedicate their entire life to their religion and we sign a kind of a pledge, ehm, for a billion years of service. It's a symbolic gesture of your dedication.
Z: If a year or two after signing this fraternity membership, and completing the course you break the contract, will this pro forma invoice be brought up?
McShane: If the member leaves the church there is no bill. If he wants to continue receiving services, he would be responsible to not only pay that course, but all services. But there are circumstances when somebody has left that that somebody does not have to pay at all.
Z: Is it correct that these pro forma invoices are known as the "Freeloader's Bill"?
Z: Is it correct that the church claims these "Freeloader Debts" as amounts receivable on its balance sheets as submitted to the US Internal Revenue Service?
Magnusson interrupts, and wants to know where these questions are going to. The Chair answers instead: the obvious point of this line of questioning is whether these invoices are symbolic or not.
Z: Is it true that these Freeloader Debts are reported to the US tax offices?
McShane: [smiling] No.
Z: Does the church have an internal reporting system that weekly reports these Freeloader Debts to Scientology management, as part of the "Income Notes Collections Summary"?
[Comment: We received this information just that same morning. Thank you - you know who you are.]
McShane: It is possible … there could be … I am not familiar with such a system. I don't know.
Zenon has gotten enough out of McShane. Yes, these bills are real, and yes, parts of the NOTs Pack are included in OT6 and OT7, and McShane didn't say so before. That is all he had to prove. Zenon ends his interrogation and retracts his request to hear the new witnesses. The court looks relieved.
MAGNUSSON'S TURN: McShane gets his chance to repair some of the damage done. While Zenon was questioning McShane, he was ghastly nervous. Our supporter, who was sitting right behind McShane, later told us that McShane was shaking and that his legs couldn't stop trembling. Only when Magnusson interrogates him does he calm down. Actually, McShane relaxes so much that out of sheer relief , he starts babbling and *again* confirms what Zenon just got out of him, but this time of his own accord:
McShane gives us the same story about OT5 that we have heard a few times before in this court, but this time with an emphasis on "services" and "exchange".
McShane: "Solo NOTs are related to NOTs but are not NOTs. On Solo NOTs the member needs to have some understanding of what NOTs are and what he will be addressing at that level so some of the principles are related to him, so that he understands what he is doing."
McShane: "The pro forma invoices relate to training, the costs of living et cetera. That is because the Class IX Auditor Course is only for staff members - and there is only one church that trains Class IX Auditors, that is our Flag church, in Florida - and that church invests a lot in those persons. Not only the supervision, room and board, but also the medical expenses and dental expenses, and that is how this pro forma invoice came about, because people were coming in for these free services doing these courses for a year or two and then leaving, without any exchange for the church! That is why we came up with this."
Zenon *loves* this. In almost every other line, McShane is confirming that *in exchange for work* people are allowed to study the NOTs. Under Swedish law, that means that the NOTs are not for free. *Any* exchange whereby you give something away but expect something in return, may simply *not* be labelled "free".
IT IS ONLY AFTERWARDS that we discover that Zenon's job could have been easier. Jeta points out in a message that we only find after the court sessions have finished, that the Freeloader's Bill is actually *part* of the NOTs:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 NOVEMBER 1978R-1
ADDITION OF 15 OCTOBER 1981
C O N F I D E N T I A L
NED FOR OTs
ADVANCED COURSES SPECIALIST COURSE
[...] STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION [...]
B. STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A: -----------------------------
I attest (a) I have enrolled on the course,
=== (b) I have been properly invoiced for the course as
=== a contracted staff member,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
THE CHAIR ANNOUNCES that we will have short break, after which final pleas will be held. The Chair wishes to know how long both parties will approximately speak. Magnusson claims and hour, and Zenon says, oops!-ishly, "The court said that brief is better, so I went home and wrote fifty pages of notes…" Some judges can't help but smile.
The pleas will be taped. [Yes, we will get hold of these tapes and then translate Zenon's plea to English.]
MAGNUSSON GOES FIRST. He focuses very much on first publication, quotes a lot of foreign rulings, and seems to come up with more rhetoric than legal arguments. He also claims that the Court in my case made a severe error, because they believed that 25,000 copies of OT3 were made while that number only pertained to the amount of people who had studied them. This is a blatant lie: the court in my case never said anything to this account. They *knew* that people just studied the same copies; one of my lawyers had even made a joke about it: if in a porn video shop fifty people see a flick one after the other, all of them seeing it on their own, it is still fifty people who have seen it and the flick is still *publicly* shown, not privately.
11:20 - Magnusson is done! That was remarkably short. Last time he was excruciatingly lengthy.
11:30 - Zenon's turn. [These are just short notes. A full transcript will be made available later on.]
ZENON EXPLAINS TO the court Scientology's principle of "acceptable truths" and illustrates it with the testimonies that we have heard. Vorm, Small, Alexandersson, and McShane himself - all of them have been proven to have been withholding parts of the truth, or sometimes reverted to claiming that "they didn't know" when an answer would be too damaging. The court must also take into account that Vorm, Small and McShane have big economic, social and religious stakes in what they say. They are not objective witnesses, they have their position and their religion to defend.
Zenon at one point openly slights Magnusson: while going through the Dutch case and CST being part of it, he says that "RTC had a better lawyer in that country than the one that they employed here…" I only manage to keep a straight face because I knew that the joke was coming. Not even a hint of a smile crosses my lips. Magnusson contains himself. But fifteen seconds later I hear a deep sigh escaping him.
Discussing the identity of the texts, Zenon stresses that modifications abound, different versions have been used through time, and that texts are often revised. We simply have no means of knowing what *exactly* is registered with the US Copyright Office; it is masked, after all. Zenon explains that there is no contradiction between his claim that this material is Scientology's material on the one hand, and his claim that there is no equality between the Scientology's material and what he published on the other. *Only* the text that is registered with the US Copyright Office counts, and RTC has not proven that the materials that Zenon published are identical to those that are registered.
Zenon harps upon McShane's definition of "infringement": paraphrasing is infringement; the use of certain words is a infringement, quoting is an infringement, actually, any use of any part of any text outside the church is an infringement. When Zenon quoted mere captions of a part of OT2 in the Fishman Affidavit, without ever including the actual sections underneath each caption, that was labelled as an infringement too. And what is more: RTC's method of comparison never allowed the court to assess how much he quoted of a passage, and thus doesn't allow the court to consider whether quoting such a passage is within the limits of the law.
Publication. Zenon lists the reasons why the OTs and NOTs should be considered to have been legally published (an assessment from which the right to quote and the right to make private copies follow, *and* from which it will follow that the primary court, the administrative court and parliament will again be able to give copies of the OTs and NOTs to the public as per offentlighetsprincipen). The amount of people who accessed the NOTs (5,000 to 7,000) and the OTs (25,000); the translation of the OTs into four languages; the commercial offering of the OTs and NOTs to all eight million Scientologists via the Scientology magazine "Source"; the accessibility (all you need to do is to qualify) of OTs and NOTs for all Scientologists; and the paying for these courses - each and every one of these elements is in itself sufficient to constitute publication.
Jurisprudence has it that the "closed circle", the "limited circulation" that a text can enjoy without constituting legal publication, is very small. Now let's look at the church's own figures: 25,000 (members who have done OT2 and OT3) times 6,000 dollars (the price for each of these courses) times 2 (OT2 and OT3) times 9 (crowns in the dollar) amounts to 2,7 billion SEK. Would *any* circle that generates such an amount ever be considered closed?
The pro forma invoices are not pro forma. They build upon the principle of *exchange*. In order to partake these courses, students are supposed to *produce* for the church. These Class IX Auditors who study the NOTs do pay in work: only this morning, McShane literally said: "We don't want them to have these courses for free." They work for years on end, and produce the huge revenues that Scientology gets from the courses that they administer.
12:10 - 13: 15 - Lunch break.
ZENON POINTS OUT to the court that if they accept Magnusson's stance on copyrights, that would have severe repercussions on copyright law. Actually, the law would need to be completely re-written. After all, Magnusson claims that private circles can be really big, and that distributing material within such a circle gives you all rights but no obligations whatsoever. If that point of view is accepted by the court, Zenon's own Free Church of Scientology will have a ball. All Zenon needs to do is set up membership, invent some requirements that members have to meet, and treat the material with the same confidentiality that Scientology does. Once he has done that, he can circulate this same material to up to 25.000 members without committing infringement. After all, it is only within a closed circle, isn't it? What is more, this same principle will be applicable to *other* material by other people. People can set up closed circles for the distribution of DVDs, of computer programs, of videos. Nobody would be obliged to pay anything to any copyright holder as long as they apply some membership conditions and confidentiality.
As for the material: RTC's argument obscures that Zenon did not simply post parts of OT2 and OT3. What he actually did was to publish a court file, to instruct the general public. The OT-fragments were just a very small part of the Fishman file. Article 26 of the Swedish copyright law, explicitly permits the publication of copyrighted texts that are part of a court case, if this is done within the frame of reporting about the case itself.
Regarding the right to quote: Zenon quoted only 3 pages of the 300 page OT2 and the 25 pages from the 200 page OT3: that is less than 6%. Compare this fact to how McShane portrayed the severity of Zenon's infringement: "From OT2 [Panoussis] 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 %." That sounds serious, Zenon says, but in all actuality we are only talking about less then 6% of OT2 and OT3.
European Convention of Human Rights. Scientology has always blocked discussion: sometimes via their demand for secrecy, sometimes by (threatening to) sue, most often by either denying their own teachings or claiming that quotes are "taken out of context".
Religious freedom: other Scientologists, not part of the official church, are not allowed to practice their religion. McShane has even testified here that one of the reasons for RTC registering the advanced material was so that they could sue people who used the material outside the church. These people, the free Scientologists, have a constitutional right to be able to practice their religion without having to pay any particular organisation.
The damages claimed should go down in proportion to the claims that RTC loses in this appeal. Apart from that, RTC claims that their "market value" has gone down and that they have suffered "commercial damage", which is a rather remarkable claim for an organisation that purports not to be charging for the material it is suing over. As for immaterial damages: RTC does not represent and is not entitled to damages on behalf of those members of the public that suffer "irreparable damage" by reading this material "without being prepared", nor is RTC entitled to damages on behalf of individual Scientologists that might have to retake their courses. Finally, when it comes to "hurt feelings", only the author himself can be hurt, and the right to such damages does not follow the copyrights; in other words, RTC cannot *legally* have hurt feelings.
[Meanwhile, Magnusson's aide is looking at Zenon and me with piercing eyes. If looks could kill…The effect is however quite ruined by his nervousness. The guy has developed a nervous tic in the past half hour and is continuously bobbing his head.]
How can *RTC* claim to have suffered damages, by the way? They only license the material to the Advanced Organisations, it is *them* who lose clients, not RTC. If anybody should have sued Zenon, it should have been those Advanced Orgs.
[By this time I am sure that McShane wishes that he had had *Zenon* as his lawyer (and Magnusson as his opponent). Even I, with my shaky Swedish, can hear that while Magnusson was merely making statements, Zenon is developing arguments, and that some of them are rather ingenious. He is not reading from his paper, he uses them as mental reminders and builds his arguments from these stepping stones.]
Zenon goes through the various copies made / infringements that RTC claims, and the evidence for it. Nyström's testimony proved that anybody could have made the disputed May 2 posting. But RTC never bothered to look for evidence and didn't ask for any logs: perhaps they did not *really* want to assess who the culprit was? As for the bailiff: when RTC asked her to go through his computer files, she was ordered to search for more than infringements. Neither the word "Vorlon" nor "Ward" are part of RTC's texts, these are the names of people. That clearly demonstrates that RTC was after Zenon's correspondence, not (only) after the material. As for the copy of the OTs and NOTs that Zenon handed in to the administrative court: Scientology *itself* had stolen that copy (the thief has been identified and Zenon names him in court: Thierry Duchaunac) and Zenon only returned a copy that the primary court itself had produced.
Legal costs: McShane counts the lobbying with US congress and the Swedish government to seal the OTs and NOTs and to change the law regarding offentlighetsprincipen and the guarding of the OTs and NOTs in court and in parliament, as *legal costs* and wants Zenon to foot that bill, but none of these costs have anything to do with the court case itself. RTC *could* have claimed these costs as damages, but probably feared that it wouldn't get them; and thus, they made them part of the legal bill.
RTC *insists* on having their material masked. That in itself makes establishing of identity and other evidence so much more difficult: suddenly we need notaries and complicated comparisons. Those costs are the consequence of RTC's *own* desires and demands, and they can hardly expect Zenon to pay for that.
Meanwhile, Magnusson has produced an enormous amount of copies, many of them unnecessary; and all these are put on Zenon's bill. Besides, the amount of payment that Magnusson demands for his own work is enormous as compared to what lawyers usually get.
14:05 - Zenon is done. 90 minutes all in all.
In this case, too, bills for legal costs need to be handed in. Zenon asks for 25,000 SEK, that is: 2525 USD - for lost hours of work, copies, stamps and so on. Magnusson's turn. He hands in a bill for 1,665,000 SEK (168,000 USD):
lawyer's fees: 1,400,000 SEK
translations 1,600,000 SEK
work McShane 75,000 SEK
travel costs 20,000 SEK
Zenon comments upon the amount demanded for McShane's work: it is McShane's *job* to travel from court to court. To put that here as expenses, is slightly ridiculous. And as for Magnusson's fee, he won't even comment upon it.
The court announces that the ruling will be available from the secretariat of the court in six weeks from now: on March 9, 2001, at 11:00.
* * *
SATURDAY AFTERNOON we take the plane back home. We have a nice flight and even get served (fake) caviar. We read Dutch newspapers and work on this report. After landing, we stack an enormous amount of luggage on a trolley: apart from our bags, we have a 25 kg Samsonite with legal papers and a 10 kg carton with more of the same.
We show our passports at customs. The guy is not interested and waves us to pass on. The moment Zenon moves, a guy in civilian clothes comes up to him and flashes him a bag. "Customs. Opium law. We want to search your baggage. Would you please follow me into this room?" I am whisked off as well. Four other people, all plainclothes customs officers, are waiting for us there. All our bags are put in line and are searched thoroughly. The man searching the Samsonite dutifully sifts through the binders and is amazed at the number of them. "The both of us are being sued by Scientology, you know, this cult," we explain. "Actually, we are just returning from court." Zenon picks up a newspaper that was on top of the binder and shows them a one-page article with a picture of us: "Zenon's lonely war against Scientology". (A stupid headline, by the way. We are not lonely. We have all of a.r.s. to back us up and help us - and it *did*.)
Slowly, something dawns upon the faces of the police. We are cleared within five minutes and allowed to leave. They apologise profusely.
When we get home we make a couple of calls and pull a few strings. Soon we discover that the Dutch Customs did not receive *one* but *two* tips, "independent" of one another, both describing Zenon and me at great length, and giving a rather detailed account of how we would be smuggling cocaine from Sweden into the Netherlands. And of course, Customs have to investigate every tip they receive. We had to be stopped and searched, even though Customs themselves found the tips a bit weird. (So would I. Smuggling coke from Sweden into Holland? That's like carrying water to the sea - from the desert, at that).
Zenon and I learn one important lesson from this. Scientology's harassment of us has stepped up remarkably: the tails that were put on us in Stockholm, the bailiff that was sicked upon Zenon, and now accusations of coke smuggling. This is how we reply:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Zenon's posting to a.r.s.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: Zenon Panoussis <firstname.lastname@example.org
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology
Subject: First and last warning.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:08:16 +0100
Something happened. You will read about it in Karin's next (and last) Stockholm report, due tomorrow. However, I have a point to make in the direction of the CoS, now at once.
The following is part of a mail from me to someone. I just post it as is so I don't have to repeat myself.
Forget it. Anonymous phone calls. Even thinking of investigations is a waste of time. The same goes for most of what they do.
What they should think of is that, so far, we have been harassing them openly, while they are now harassing us anonymously. What they forget to take into account is that we are much better at anonymous harassment than they will ever be. Thus, if this continues, we might sooner or later take their example and pay them back in their own currency.
Actually I will post these last three paragraphs on ars/nls and give them one single chance to think it over. If they don't get it, if they choose to change the war from "clean" to "dirty", so much the worse for them. They'll get a taste of their own medicine that no toothpaste will ever take away.
Scieno drones, please pay attention to the subject line. This is your first *and last* warning. Any more of this kind of shit, any at all, and you will not know what the fuck is hitting you. Beware. You have been advised.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Amsterdam, January 28 2001
- K -
The First Amendment presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. - Judge Learned Hand as cited in New York Times v. Sullivan
I write, therefore I am:
Any text written by other authors which may be quoted in part or in full within this exposure of the Scientology cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you're an author of an article and do not wish to allow it to be mirrored or otherwise provided on The Skeptic Tank web site, let us know and it will be removed fairly promptly.E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank