Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland. erols.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cph-1.news.DK.net!d kuug!dknet!funny.bahnhof.se!seunet!news2.swip.net!mn6.swip.net!mn5.swip.net!new s From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Sweden: New constitution on the making Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:20:21 +0100 Organization: - Lines: 96 Message-ID: <32948145.5E1B@dodo.pp.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup88-8-5.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: dm@dma.se, hkk@netcom.com, Zenon Panoussis , marianne.levin@juridicum.su.se Time for an update: The scienos have appealed the bailiff's decision not to raid the parliament. They keep claiming that the parliament's copy of the NOTs is in my "indirect possession". Their claim is supported by an opinion from an ex-supreme court judge. I checked with the civil register: he turned 80 last week. * McShame is in Stockholm. Yesterday he held a press conference at the Grand Hôtel, Stockholm's poshest, together with his old lackey Magnusson and a new one from another law firm, by the name of Monique Wadsted. I was not invited to the conference, so my report has to rely on the data conveyed by those who were. The scienos and their lawyers want to change the constitution. Sure, it's the constitution that is wrong, not their heads. But I must admit that they were masterly in misleading the media. They started off with copyright, then subtly changed the subject to trade secrets, and went on by comparing the parliament's copying of the NOTs to the copying of Coca-Cola's recipy, or Ericsson's invention of a new mobile phone system. No journalist seems to have noticed that copyright and trade secret are just two different things. No journalist seems to have asked why they only sued me for copyright infringement and not for trade secret infringement. From the same sources I learn that the scienos have asked for the parliament's copying of the NOTs to be examined by the parliament's constitutional committee. Only MPs can make such a request, so it will be very interesting to know which MP runs the scienos' errands. * Marianne Levin, proffessor of law on immaterial property at the university of Stockholm, made a statement to the press saying that the authorities that are copying the NOTs "may be acting wrongly" and that "it cannot be the intention of the constitution to help individuals to damage others' property" (Metro). I think I know what the first statement is based on: she wrongly assumes that the NOTs have not been made public in the meaning of the law, which regards a work as public as soon as the work leaves the author's immediate circle of family, friends and/or publisher. What she means by the second statement escapes me. I hope she doesn't mean that we shouldn't apply the constitution because someone feels hurt by it. When the constitution was written, and also when the copyright law was written, the interests that could be hurt were weighed against the interests that are served by the actual writings. Copyright law contains a special provision in article 26 b that regulates this precise situation. So I really hope that Marianne Levin, who by the way persononally has taught me most of what I know on copyright, does not mean that the authorities should disregard the law. I have sent her my comments on her statement, but have received no additional comments from her so far. * Counting in this Monique Wadsten, there is now a total of three different law firms engaged by the scienos against me (as far as I know). As for the number of lawyers, well, I can only guess. This non-profitable organization that was so injustly accused of greed by Time magazine seems actually to be very generous. Maybe I should go ask them for a job. But then again, taking a job for them I'd have to wash my hands in sulfuric acid every evening to get them clean. After all, I'm maybe better off without a job for them. Z --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth... From news-central.tiac.net!news-in.tiac.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!mn5.swip.net!news Sat Nov 23 07:33:23 1996 Path: news-central.tiac.net!news-in.tiac.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!mn5.swip.net!news From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Sweden: New constitution on the making Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 03:31:05 +0100 Organization: - Lines: 49 Message-ID: <32951069.70F8@dodo.pp.se> References: <32948145.5E1B@dodo.pp.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup113-1-8.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 wrote: > The scienos have appealed the bailiff's decision not > to raid the parliament. They keep claiming that the > parliament's copy of the NOTs is in my "indirect > possession". Their claim is supported by an opinion > from an ex-supreme court judge. I checked with the > civil register: he turned 80 last week. and the first reply to this made me realize that "an opinion from a... judge" was an ill-chosen expression. The opinion is not given in court, it's not a precedent. It is is an opinion given 10 days ago at the request of the CoS and (presumably) paid by the CoS. The ex-judge has simply given his view on the matter, in writing. That's all. It's common practice to ask jurists of high standing for such opinions in tricky and important cases, and the opinions are filed in court only if they happen to support the case of the party that requested them. Otherwise they are buried. Also, no lawyer of good standing and honour will express an opinion before he has gone thoroughly through the matter before him, so usually you can't get a "preliminary"; you have to ask for an opinion and pay it and hope for the best. What I mean to say by this long explanation is that Magnusson might have and probably has another 50 opinions from well-renowned laywers in his drawer, all saying that the parliament NOTs cannot be seized. We won't know about them. And as such opinions are paid for, the lawyer in question becomes associated to the CoS in a sort of attorney-client way and is thereafter not completely free to express his anti-CoS opinion openly. Wonder how many Special Edition Super E-meters at USD 3.500 they have to sell, to pay the wasted adverse opinions. By the way, have you ever heard of a 3.500-dollar electronic apparatus that comes without a manual? Yes you have. The E-meter. Manual sells separately for another 120. (someone's smiling now for her own reasons) Z --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...