From: Zenon Panoussis Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,nl.scientology Subject: Re: Ruling in Zenon's case Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:10:01 +0200 Message-ID: <35FDB059.84B0D641@xs4all.nl> Karin Spaink wrote: > > Today the ruling in Zenon's main case was delivered. The > ruling is 56 pages long and Zenon has by now only had time > to read the first few pages. By now I've read the entire ruling, have had dinner and champagne (planned weeks ago either I win or lose) and also a good discussion with another criminal, which was needed to structure my thoughts. I am facing the following problems: 1. The ruling against me this afternoon was pretty solid. I did find a couple of ridiculous logical flaws, but if these flaws had not been there the end result would have been just the same. In other words, the judges did put in a good work in producing a solid ruling and succeeded at it. I surely don't agree with them in their assessment of the legal situation in whole - how could I? - but I can't just wave away the ruling as I did with the previous one. This makes an appeal all the more difficult: I would need to work a lot to get the court of appeals to overrule this one, and I don't like to work. Actually, I mostly like to play. 2. I need to have a goal. It is considered bad taste to quote oneself, so I will show some bad taste and do so. A year and a half ago I wrote the following in <3363D794.7A6116EF@dodo.pp.se>: "Originally I entered a fight for the freedom of speech on the net [...] I set a new goal, to expose scientology, the CoS and Hubbard for what they really are [...] Until then, the litigation that the CoS initiated served my purposes [...] Now it doesn't any more [...] I have arrived to the point where litigation actually serves its Hubbardian purpose: to harass". I wonder what my goal with an appeal would be. To win the case, evidently. But I don't give a damn about the case as such. It is swell to win and go out with the great news, and it is good for the general morale as well, but it is not the point really; neither the fight nor its outcome depend on that. My goals are still the same as they were originally: a) to show the CoS that bullies can't have their way and b) to undermine the position in society of a truly evil organization. Utterly, I doubt that winning my case does much in either of those directions. I need to keep track of my goals. The situation that arose today makes it more difficult than ever. 3. I *never* give up under pressure. I very often give up under boredom, laziness or drunkenness, but never ever under pressure. This is one of my most basic principles, an instict almost. Thus, the very fact that I lost pushes me to fight more, although I can count a very good deal of other things that I much rather would persue and delve in. I need to combine these problems into a solution. I considered proposing a settlement, but decided against it for two reasons: a) After my settlement talks with McShane in May, I know that the CoS is never able to take what it can get and say "thank you". The moment I offer them an end to litigation, they'll start asking for gag agreements and the like. Hence no point in even bringing up the subject. b) It is also bad taste to propose settlements when you're losing. I made myself guilty of bad taste already once today, so I won't do it again. Thus, I'll appeal. Maybe to win and maybe to make them spend; contrary to the CoS, I'm free to decide and redecide that matter as I go along. And contrary to the CoS, I don't need to pay any costs for past or present litigation. I own nothing but debts. But that doesn't cover it. I still have to cover my goals. In one aspect, today's ruling opened a whole new Pandora's box of possibilities. It said (not in these words) that if you apply the same criteria as the CoS does for distributing the OTs and NOTs to people, your distribution remains within a "closed circle" and falls outside copyright protection as long as you produce no copies. In other words: I can distribute OTs and NOTs from Sweden to 25.000 members of my church without infringing copyright, as long as I apply strict restrictions for membership and access to the texts and do not produce any copies myself. Great news for my free zone; I will immediately revive it. That should cover part of the "bullies can't have their way" goal. Bleeding their money while ridiculing them is as good a way as any to reach for the "undermine the position in society of a truly evil organization" goal. The CoS has proven well that playing fair and square gets you tangled in its web. Playing unfair and unsquare is more efficient, apart from being more fun. I intend to start playing unfair and unsquare. So far the CoS has spent great effort and money in proving my infringements. I'd like to turn the tables, so here is a promise: From now on I will admit to being guilty to *any* copyright violation concerning the OTs and NOTs that is brought to my attention. In other words, anybody that posts or otherwise publishes these scriptures in my name, or publishes them in his/her name and and blames me for having faked their names, will find me unreservedly admitting my guilt. There's only one risk with this strategy: the CoS may use this posting against said people, to prove that my admission is untrustworthy. Good, then I'll use that to publish the scriptures myself in other people's names, knowing that the CoS has already precluded itself from attacking me. Who said guerilla tactics are dead? The password to my notsfury@hotmail.com account is "notsspam". This message will be archived by DejaNews. I have (yet) not abused my Hotmail account. Ha. Just remember to keep a tab on the IP addresses you leave behind you. Public libraries are such an excellent public service... Z -- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...