Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 05:58:45 +0100 From: Zenon Panoussis To: Grady Ward Cc: dm@dma.se, hkk@netcom.com, Zenon Panoussis Subject: Psychotic organizations & lawyers [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Grady Ward wrote: > > I found out that the criminal cult is telling the Judge that the NOTs > that I filed under seal is a *forgery*. Now why would they say that? > Perhaps the contents of the sealed exhibit will magically change while > in their custody? I received a fax from Grady. Shortly thereafter I filed the following brief by fax. The translation is very litteral, please excuse the Swedishisms. ============================================================================ Primary court of Stockholm P O Box 8307 104 20 Stockholm _Cases T 7-866-96, B 7-3475-96 and Ä 9-87-96._ In the USA, RTC has sued and carries a process against a certain Grady Ward, with allegations that he violates the American equivalent to the law on protection of trade secrets. RTC has made its case against Grady Ward relevant in the abovementioned cases through its file attachement 9 in case T 7-866-96. RTC's case against Grady Ward stands or falls with the question whether the NOTs have been made public or not. The material whose reproduction and/or distribution through me constitutes the core and ground of all the above cases, appears in file attachement 37 in case T 7-866-96. The greatest part of this material, namely (my) NOTs, are reproduced in the primary court's file with protocol number ADM 1.14.6/96. Grady Ward has received a copy of the latter document and filed it in the American court as evidence of the fact that the NOTs have been publicized. The copy that Grady Ward handed in to the court is bound with security string and is attested by the registrar of the administrative section of the primary court of Stockholm. After having received Grady Ward's relevant brief, the RTC has claimed through its representative Thomas R. Hogan, that the NOTs copy that has been handed in is a forgery. Thus, with the obective of protecting its alleged trade secrets, the RTC claims in the American court, that the text of the Stockholm primary court's document with protocol number ADM 1.14.6/96 does not correspond to the work that has been registered with the USA's Copyright Office with protocol number Txu 257326. Thus, translated to the cases in question here, the RTC claims that the text that I allegedly have reproduced and/or distributed does not correspond to the text that the RTC claims copyright to. RTC and its representatives live perhaps in the naive belief that the RTC's counterparts cannot communicate with each-other, and that the RTC can both eat the cake and have it by presenting mutually contradicting claims in different cases. Fortunately this is not accurate, and the RTC has to choose between giving up its suit against Grady Ward or giving up its suit against me. I attach the RTC's brief in the case against Grady Ward as evidence of the RTC's admission of the fact that the material that I allegedly have reproduced and/or distributed does not correspond to the material that the RTC claims copyright to. With the same objective of evidence I demand that the RTC, according to chapter 38 article 2 of procedural law, will be enjoined upon to produce within certain time the document that is referred to as "Exhibit A" in Thomas R. Hogan's attached brief, in the original or as an attested copy. I request that the court immediately communicates this brief with RTC by fax. Stockholm, 1996-11-01 Zenon Panoussis ============================================================================ This is not intended to win the case for either me or Grady. It is only intended to teach the CoS lackeys not to play frivolous games. Z --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...