Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,nl.scientology Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!sthomson From: sthomson@netcom.com (shelley thomson) Subject: **Biased Journalism** V2no20 The Envelope, Please! Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:03:48 GMT Lines: 891 Sender: sthomson@netcom17.netcom.com Xref: netnews.worldnet.att.net alt.religion.scientology:150902 comp.org.eff.talk:22739 misc.legal.computing:8712 nl.scientology:809 **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for the shortcomings of the professional news media. We cover issues of interest to the citizens of cyberspace. This is a community newspaper of the net. Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved. Mail, articles and comment may be directed to . Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the net immediately. **Biased Journalism** Volume 2, issue 20 October 9, 1996. Contents: The Envelope, Please: A Hearing in San Jose; A Word From Zenon; Letter to the Editor [Threat Mail from RTC]; Rodent Report [a gossip column] Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**! 1. The Envelope, Please! San Jose: October 4, 1996 [Message contents deleted by Modemac] -------------------------- 2. A Few Words from Zenon First, here is the McShane Declaration, which Roger Milgrim apparently brought along as a contingency plan but hoped he would not have to file. Zenon Panoussis , the irrepressible Swedish lawyer who gave copies of NOTS to his parliament, sent us his comments. Attorneys for Plaintiffs RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,) No. C-96 20271 RMW a California non-profit corporation; ) ) DECLARATION OF WARREN Plaintiff, ) MCSHANE ) V. ) Date: October 4, 1996 ) Time: 10:30 a.m. H. KEITH HENSON, an individual ) Hon: Ronald M. Whyte ) Defendant. ) ) I, Warren McShane, hereby declare: 1. 1 am the President of Plaintiff, Religious Technology Center. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. If called upon, I could and would testify competently to these facts. 2. Late Thursday afternoon, October 3, 1996, I was advised that Mr. Henson stated to RTC's counsel, Thomas R. Hogan, that NOTs 34 and other NOTs materials were readily available in Sweden, from a public source. Mr. Henson stated that these materials had been provided to Parliament. 3. I have personal knowledge of current developments in Sweden concerning NOTS, Commencing in late August 1996, until late in September, I was present and daily supervised litigation against a Swedish citizen. A Swedish Court found that individual had wrongfully posted a large number of NOTs issues on the Internet. The Court enjoined him and ordered a seizure, which was promptly executed. 4. In violation of the Court's injunction, the Swedish defendant filed a copy of the NOTs issues in the Court file. RTC immediately moved to place the documents under seal. The Court, however, initially declined to place the documents under seal. That decision was immediately appealed to the Swedish Court of Appeals. It promptly ordered sealing of the unpublished works in controversy, and has explicitly denied access to them to all third parties. While granting access to the defendant at the courthouse for the purposes of his defense, the Court of Appeals has expressly denied him the right to copy them. The trial court, thus instructed by the Court of Appeals, has also sealed these documents in its file. 5. I learned in the past several days that the Swedish defendant, in violation of the Injunction, caused a copy of NOTs and the exhibits to the Fishman declaration (with which the Court is familiar) to be lodged with the Clerk of the Swedish Parliament. That copy was removed in about a day, seemingly by a person within the Parliament. The Clerk has advised our Swedish lawyers that no one accessed it or made copies. 6. Shortly thereafter, the Swedish Defendant, again in violation of the Court's order, filed another set of these documents with the Clerk of Parliament. I have been advised by our counsel that the Clerk will permit limited access to the document, but will not permit any copying. RTC has filed a Writ in Parliament to seal. 7. Since the current filing with the Clerk, at my request, parishioners have been at the Clerk's office, and I am advised that no unauthorized person has accessed it. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Jose, California the 3rd day of October 1996. Warren McShane Now for Zenon's comments: > 3. ... A Swedish Court found that individual had > wrongfully posted a large number of NOTs issues on the Internet. > The Court enjoined him and ordered a seizure, which was promptly > executed. The court found nothing of the sort. In a preliminary decision, taken without my hearing, the court forbade me to *infringe upon RTC's copyright* and ordered the *preliminary* taking into custody of such material that the RTC has copyright to. Later the court of appeals modified the latter ruling, stating explicitly that *not all material to which the RTC owns the copyright, but only such material that infringes in that copyright, is to be kept in custody. The difference is that I am permitted to have the material for personal and other use permitted by copyright law and the ordinance on the freedom of press (OFP), while *editions* of the same material, numbers of identical copies intended for distribution, are to remain in custody *pending a ruling in the case*. In any case, it is worth noting that the rulings forbid infringement, which is a legal term open to later judgement, rather that forbid a factual act, such as the distribution of the NOTs. The courts have therefore done little more than repeat the text of statute; they have pronounced hardly any opinion on whether my copying and/or distribution of the NOTs actually constitutes an infringement or not. > 4. In violation of the Court's injunction, the Swedish > defendant filed a copy of the NOTs issues in the Court file. My filing of them violated in no way any injunction. McShame is making legal assertions and interpretations of Swedish law that he is hardly competent to make. > RTC immediately moved to place the documents under seal. The Court, > however, initially declined to place the documents under seal. That > decision was immediately appealed to the Swedish Court of Appeals. > It promptly ordered sealing of the unpublished works in controversy, > and has explicitly denied access to them to all third parties. This is correct, except for the word "unpublished". It is not to the witness to judge what is published or not. > While granting access to the defendant at the courthouse for the > purposes of his defense, the Court of Appeals has expressly denied > him the right to copy them. This is a direct lie. The court of appeals has granted *me* one copy, which was sent to my lawyer. The decision does not contain *any* restrictions on the use of that document, leaving me free to show it, lend it to or give it away to any other person as I may please, although--notably--the court had the ability to place such restrictions on me according to the law on secrecy. > The trial court, thus instructed by the Court of > Appeals, has also sealed these documents in its file. The trial court (I assume he means the primary court) cannot legally be instructed by the court of appeals. On the contrary, in its decision of RTC's appeal on the matter of secrecy on September 13th, the court of appeals clearly stated that there exists no such thing as an a priori sealing and that a separate decision on secrecy is to be made by the authority that has a document every time a request for the document is made. The primary court will decide the secrecy issue anew every single time it receives a request for a copy and the decision will be based on all relevant facts, including the fact that the parliament is handing out copies of the same document. > 5. I learned in the past several days that the Swedish > defendant, in violation of the Injunction, caused a copy of NOTs and > the exhibits to the Fishman declaration (with which the Court is > familiar) to be lodged with the Clerk of the Swedish Parliament. Legal assertations again. I delivered a legal copy of the NOTs (i.e. a copy made by the primary court, which breaks every previous chain of possible unlawfulness and which can be handled freely according to OFP) to the parliament, an act that does not constitute any violation of anything. > That copy was removed in about a day, seemingly by a person within > the Parliament. The Clerk has advised our Swedish lawyers that no > one accessed it or made copies. McShame is lying. The parliament received the NOTs on September 20th and lost them on September 30th. A large number of copies was produced and handed out in this while; among others, all major Stockholm newspapers have ordered, received and paid for a copy each. I received such a copy myself, that is now in circulation and a number of individuals ordered and received copies as well. Besides, the parliament's copy was not "removed", it was STOLEN. > 6. Shortly thereafter, the Swedish Defendant, again in > violation of the Court's order, filed another set of these documents > with the Clerk of Parliament. I have been advised by our counsel > that the Clerk will permit limited access to the document, but will > not permit any copying. RTC has filed a Writ in Parliament to seal. Two days after the theft I delivered a new copy, again without violating any court orders. The parliament has promptly been copying ever since. Seven members of the parliament have requested and received copies and I myself requested and received a copy of this "second edition". Also, the newspaper Aftonbladet published the fact that the NOTs are available at the parliament, causing quite a rush of individuals asking for and receiving copies. RTC may file whatever writs they want, but they have no formal standing as a party in the issue of secrecy vs publicity of the document in question. > 7. Since the current filing with the Clerk, at my > request, parishioners have been at the Clerk's office, and I am > advised that no unauthorized person has accessed it. The "parishioners" went there and delivered their "What is Scientology" and other glossy material, causing the clerk some mild irritation. The Fishman tactic of creating a scieno queue to the documents in order to prevent others from seing them does not work here. An authority is under obligation to meet the demand of access to public documents, so if the scienos create a queue, they will only force the parliament to make still more copies, so that everybody can read them. > I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the > United States that the foregoing is true and correct. He declares shit. Hearsay and evaluations, that's all that he declares. He declares that others have told him this or that and he declares his own interpretations of Swedish law. Does he go down for perjury if it is proven that his interpretations were anything but true and correct? He also omits the fact, known to him by now, that not only the parliament has and hands out copies of the NOTs. Your [Keith Henson's] own copy of #34 comes from the Chancellor of Justice, who is also making copies to the public, a fact proven by your own copy. And still more authorities are making copies, each one of them making it increasingly harder for all the others to ever seal this document. Only hours after I read McShame's statement did I realize that he just gave himself away with it. This is what he wrote: > 5. I learned in the past several days that the Swedish > defendant, in violation of the Injunction, caused a copy of NOTs and > the exhibits to the Fishman declaration (with which the Court is > familiar) to be lodged with the Clerk of the Swedish Parliament. Until the late evening of Friday 27th September, when I posted in ars the news that the NOTs where in the parliament, neither McShame nor any other scientologist had the faintest idea about it. At the time of my posting the parliament was closed and did not re-open until the morning of Monday 30th September. When the scieno delegation arrived there and requested to see the document, it was discovered that the document was missing. Thus, the official scieno delegation never got to see it before the theft. I wander now how the hell can McShame know with such accuracy what that document contained, if neither he nor any of his people ever saw it. Did the thief act on McShame's orders? Did the thief hand over the stolen document to McShame? Or did the thief just refer the stolen document to McShame over the phone? > I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the > United States that the foregoing is true and correct. To be translated to I solemnly declare that I have either commited perjury or been an accessory to theft, or both, under the laws of the United States as well as under those of Sweden. Z 3. Letters to the Editor: Helena Kobrin responds to our previous issue [remainder of message deleted by Modemac] ------------------ The End --------------------------------------- [**Biased Journalism** is distributed free in cyberspace. To subscribe, send a message to with "subscribe" as the subject. Comments, article submissions and hot tips should be addressed to . Solid mail, checks and donations go to S. Thomson, 236 Stanford S/C, Suite 142, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Separate issues of **Biased Journalism** are available via USA domestic mail at $5 apiece. Foreign rates on request. NEW: back issues of **Biased Journalism** are available on floppy disk at $2 per issue, minimum of four issues.]