Path: wn5!worldnet.att.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!mn5.swip.net!news From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Trial Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:19:02 +0100 Organization: - Lines: 136 Message-ID: <331CADE6.596A@dodo.pp.se> References: <331AC4CE.36F4@dodo.pp.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup72-3-2.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 3.01 (Win95; I) CC: Madame Kobrin , The Twit The following is an evaluation of the legal situation in the penalty case that I refer to in the threaded message and some general remarks about the developments in my cases. All in all, the RTC has at at one time or another, in one context or another, accused me of the following acts committed after September 4th, 1996, claiming that each one of them constitutes a separate copyright infringement and violation of the injunction against me: 1. the making of two copies of the OTs and NOTs on September 5th; 2. the filing of these copies with the court on September 6th (the infamous exhibit 37); 3. the making of some copies of the OTs and NOTs on September 9th and their subsequent distribution to some of my friends; 4. the making of a binary copy of the OTs and NOTs on or around September 9th and its filing with the bailiff; 5. the making of a copy of the OTs and NOTs and its filing with the parliament on September 20th; 6. the filing of a new copy of the NOTs with the parliament after the first one was stolen; 7. the filing of a copy of the NOTs with the Chancellor of Justice; 8. the filing of a copy of the NOTs with the Department of Justice; 9. the filing of a copy of the NOTs with the administrative section of the primary court on October 11th; 10. the cause and promotion of further infringing copying and distribution of the OTs and NOTs through my instructions to the public on how to order them from the above authorities; 11. the making of a copy of NOTs on December 16th. According to the RTC, each and every one of the above acts is an adequate legal ground for fining me with the penalty specified in the injunction. Yet the RTC chose not to formally demand that I be fined, except for acts 1, 2, 3 and 4. And now, two days before the case to fine me fine comes up in court, the RTC withdraws even 4 as a formal ground for its case to fine me. Isn't that strange? It can be speculated that the RTC abstains from using grounds that it cannot fully prove and might lose. But that is not adequate. My filings with the parliament for instance are fully proved and admitted by me in writing. According to the RTC's previous argumentation, these filing constituted infringing distribution. Now the CoS retrocedes in the case concerning my fining, although it does not in the main infringement case. Why? My guess is the following: In the main copyright case the RTC has an injuction against me that stands, and will stand until the case is finally closed at earliest in the summer, but more probably next winter. Until then, the RTC can use that injunction as a basis for its rhetorics in the US cases. In the meanwhile the public status of the NOts at the parliament and the other authorities is hurting the CoS, but not half as much as is it would if there was a court ruling that explicitly states that it was not illegal, nor a breach of the injunction, for the NOTs to be filed with the parliament etc. As long as there is no such ruling, the CoS can keep alleging that not only the copies at the authorities, but also all copies made by the authorities, are "unauthorized", illegal etc. But the motion to fine me is to be tried now. If the RTC brought up the parliament NOTs and lost, it would be facing just the ruling it so much wants to avoid. And Magnusson, Kobrin and all the other brilliant heads that have been "handling" me know well enough that they run a great risk of losing. The solution to this is not to bring up the matter of the parliament at all, thus buying Hogan and his gang some time before they have to face the bitter truth even in Grady's and Keith's cases. In a choice between losing and not winning, not winning is far better. Anyone that comes up with a better or more likely explanation wins a three-year prepaid free access subscription to the NOTs on Andreas' site. I might add that there has been a general decline of activity on the part of Magnusson & Co in all the cases against me in the past couple of months. The cataract of daily RTC faxes marked "URGENT" of last fall has been exchanged for deadlines missed, questions left unanswered and sloppy argumentation (OK, it never was bright, but it was still not as bad as it is now). There are no more paid comments and legal evaluations from professors, ex-judges and the like, no evident lobbying, no pressure on the courts and the bailiff, no new motions for this and that, no demands of actions and - most important - no apparent hurry on the RTC's part to conclude the cases . This cannot only be attributed to the CoS running out of legal resources; they have demonstrated that they can make a formidable noise when they want to. The most probable explanation is again that they count on losing, and they don't want to hurry it, nor waste more resources on me than what is absolutely necessary. All this might sound fine, but I must admit that I am in a way disappointed. The cases are turning bureaucratically tiresome and I am losing interest in them. There is only one solution to this problem, and that is for me to strike a new blow against the CoS, in a new way, forcing them into a new fight. I am giving the matter due consideration. Z --- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...