Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!mn5.swip.net!news From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: This Week's Digest Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:48:54 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 51 Message-ID: <3242E716.24CD@dodo.pp.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup114-3-14.swipnet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-User: s-40153 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 [nl] (Win16; I) CC: Zenon Panoussis I've been quite for almost a week. The reason is that nothing conclusive has happened; briefs have been written, the courts have been mangling, the number of formally separate judicial processes have increased to eight (yes, eight, in two weeks), but there have been no definite results one way or another. The case is becoming an increasing headache for the courts though. I have used some tricks to demonstrate that neither the secrecy nor the seizure decisions were very sound. I did ask for a copy of the NOTs from the court of appeals finally, a fact that brought the laws on secrecy and those on a party's right to the file material in collission with each other. After five days of deliberation they decided today that they will decide on my request for copy after deciding my appeal against the seizure, which in turn should be decided next week. I brought into the case my constitutional right not only to possess any information I like, but also to divulge it to publishers with the intent that *they* publish it, thus creating a situation where the constitution collides with the application of copyright law as it was applied here. There is also a very interesting constitutional prohibition against censorship prior to publication, which means that there is no legal way to forbid the future publication of *any* material, even if such material is illegal and would be liable to confiscation immediately *after* printing. The consequence is that the court orders forbidding me to publish OTs and NOTs are unconstitutional and therefore invalid. Then we have the evidence situation, where the CoS still hasn't provided any more proof of its copyrights than those ridiculous stripe-covered garbage. It may be for these reasons that the CoS lawyer Per Magnusson was muttering today to my lawyer about the possibilities of a settlement. Settlement he says, two weeks after all that high-tail legal aggression! I have more tricks up my sleeve, but as you understand I cannot post any information about what's in the doing, or I'd be giving away my aces to the CoS. I hoped to be able to make a more interesting posting today, but unfortunately it will have to wait until next week. I am posting separately an example of the ethics of the CoS lawyers. Z --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth... Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!mn5.swip.net!news From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Ethics Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:09:39 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 44 Message-ID: <3242EBF3.610F@dodo.pp.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup114-3-14.swipnet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-User: s-40153 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 [nl] (Win16; I) CC: Zenon Panoussis Pär Leander, another CoS lawyer, called my lawyer to tell her that somebody had visited him at home and insulted him and that some minor damage has been done to his office. He said that he didn't think that I was behind that, but nevertheless he wanted my lawyer to inform me about it. I answered directly to Leander as follows: Kerstin Calissendorff conveyed to me that you and the law firm have been victims of certain harassment, that you didn't believe at all that I would lie behind them, but that you nevertheless wanted that she would convey the matter to me. I notice that if you don't think that I am behind the harassments, there is no reason at all to inform me about it. If on the other hand you believe that I actually do lie behind the harassments, then I should already know about them and I need not be informed of them either. You had thus no reason to bring up this matter with Kerstin Calissendoff, if your real intention wasn't to make her suspect that I do lie behind the harassments, at the same time that you clumsily tried to conceal the fact by claiming the opposite. I strongly oppose to this attempt to slander me to my lawyer and I expect an apology today. If I do not receive it, I will post this message on the Internet both in Swedish and English, with the results that may have on your and the law firm's reputation. ZP Following this, Magnusson called my lawyer asking what to do. The obvious thing to do though, apologize, they didn't. Z --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...