Karin Spaink on 25 Jan 2001 16:44:08 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Stockholm, day 4

[previous reports are available at http://xenu.xtdnet.nl/court/ ]

Children's games

Stockholm, Tuesday January 23 2001


ZENON HAS NEW EVIDENCE and presents it to the court; it is a result of my
transcript of McShane's testimony as posted to the internet. Zenon got an
e-mail from somebody [thank you! you know who you are] who claims that the
NOTs are *also* studied privately and that more people have read the NOTs
than McShane claimed in his deposition. The actual evidence is on its way
and will be presented to court as soon as DHL allows it: an issue of
Source Magazine and a copy of International Scientology News.

9:45 - First Tingsrätt tape.

WE HEAR THE 1988 tape of the deposition in primary court of Thomas Small.
The dots represent the questions posed to him. And as we will hear, Small
does indeed *not* explain that he is at the time of this deposition
actively employed as RTC's attorney. When answering what he does for a
living, he replies by delineating his educational background and *only*
speaks about his work for RTC as if it were a thing from the past. That
makes him rather dishonest: he is far less impartial than he purported to
be. He has not told the court that he is giving a testimony about his

"I am a patent lawyer and intellectual property lawyer [explains about his
education]. ... I compiled the agreement [between CST and RTC] some time
before it was signed. ... Yes. … I was at the time representing primarily
RTC and to some extent the Trustee as well, because they were co-operating
as parties. I attempted to put their wishes on paper in the document. ...
Yes. … This document was designed to give all rights to the Advanced
Technology Scientology material outside the US to RTC. ... These were
rights that were held by the Trustee as the successor of L. Ron Hubbard. …
That includes the OTs and NOTs, those are part of the Advanced Technology.
... The grant was intended to transfer all intellectual property.
Basically, it consists of two parts. One part is the confidentiality of
the documents and the other is the [couldn't hear that, but I assume he
refers to the license] ... The protection of this confidential information
is generally ruled by the contract. The license gives the right to use and
make copies of the material. There are specific terms to it, which I will
explain later. ... There's a specific provision in the agreement that RTC
would be the enforcer and protector of these rights and, if necessary,
enter into litigation to protect these rights. ... This was in RTC's name.
They were granted the exclusive right to use the Advanced Technology and
they were authorised to sue in their own name. CST can also sue if the
need to do so arises. ... [Lots of leafing through papers is audible.] …
No, there were none other that I know of; at the bottom of the previous
page it says that the Estate has the rights to pull [inaudible] and these
serve as directions as to, as to the policy of the ecclesiastic use of the
materials. ... This is a religious document between parties who are the
leaders of a religious group and there's a number of scriptural
limitations on how these materials can be used; confidential limitations,
copyright limitations, and ecclesiastic limitations, explaining how RTC as
the protector of these materials should protect them. ... No. … Yes. … The
rights remain the same. The role of the trustees simply passed to CST when
CST became qualified to possess these rights."

Zenon's turn: "Are you saying that RTC and CST were co-operating partners
in this?"

Small: "They were co-operating although CST had at that time not yet come
directly into [xxx]. … The interests of CST and RTC were the same, yes.
... CST did then not yet have a direct interest in the subject matter of
the agreement; that was the Trustee at the time. ... Whether RTC and the
Estate had opposing any interest at that time? The answer is no, they had
not. ... It was an exclusive license, it was a transfer of copyrights, not
to titles, but the right to [tape change] ... The right to use and to
authorise others to use were covered by the exclusive license, the
copyright remains with the Trustee as the license holder. ... First,
because that was the desire of the partners, there was no intent to
transfer copyrights to RTC or to anybody else. L. Ron Hubbard very
carefully maintained personal rights to his own copyrights and Mr Hubbard
made provisions that the rights went to CST and they were entitled to hold
the rights into perpetuity. ... The limitations as I intended to state are
religious in nature: the Scientology scriptures state that this is the way
they the Advanced Technology is to be used, after all it's Mr Hubbard's
writings, and it is his wishes that guide the parties."

Zenon asks why the contract - unlike most contracts - does not deal with
possible conflicts between the contract partners or between them and third
parties, and why RTC's right to sue third parties in its own name is not

Small: "Well, that right accompanies exclusive licenses as a matter of law
in the US, it wasn't necessary to say any more in the license then it now
states. ... … That's right. … This contract was made in the US between
parties in the US, and according to my understanding any conflict arising
from the contract would be covered by and subject to US law."

Zenon: "But the contract states explicitly that is only applies to the use
of the copyrights outside the US; in countries with their own law, that
might differ. Why was it not explicitly stipulated that the RTC has the
right to sue in its own name?"

Small: "I suppose that it would be possible that there is a country where
RTC would not have the right to bring suit as an exclusive licensee, and
it is against that eventuality that, that in that case CST could do so if
it became necessary. … I also add that this is not just a copyright
agreement but also a confidentiality agreement and the licensee of
confidential information might not automatically have the right to sue,
and therefore its important for CST to have this right as a backup right
as well.."

10:18 - End tape. Next one: Thomas Vorm's testimony in Tingsrätt.

Vorm was giving his testimony via the telephone. The line is bad.
Magnusson asks the questions.

M: How long have you held this position?

Vorm: "Since October 1988. My main task is to oversee the work done by
RTC. I archive all [inaudible] to preserve the Scientology religion,
including the Advanced Technology."

M: [About the copyright of OT2, OT3 and NOTs and the respective roles of
RTC and CST with regard to these copyrights]

Vorm: "Since 1988, RTC is the protector of the copyrights. Mr Hubbard's
estate was transferred to CST, and RTC brings litigation in case of

M: Could you briefly describe CST's position when it comes to the fact
that the license has been given to RTC?

Vorm: "In 1993, after the copyrights were turned over, [inaudible]"

M: Which rights?

Vorm: "RTC had three basic rights. To authorise Scientology organisations
to use the Advanced Technology and the right to distribute copies to these
organisations; the exclusive right to protect and enforce these
copyrights; and also to [inaudible]."

M: Does this also mean, according to CST, that RTC can also start
litigation or take judicial procedures in its own name?

Vorm: "I'm not sure that I understand your question."

M: According to CST, may RTC take legal action according to this license
agreement when it comes to protect this copyrights?

Vorm: "Yes and yes."

M: In RTC's own name?

Vorm: "Yes."

M: According to the opinion of CST, are there any remaining copyrights to
this material that are not included in the license agreement and that are
not given to RTC?

Vorm: "No, there are not."

M: Could this mean that CST could take any measures if RTC does not fulfil
its obligations?

Vorm: "Yes."

Zenon's turn.

Zenon: "Why did CST sue Spaink in Holland, if RTC takes care of this?"

Vorm: "-- eh, I don't understand the question."

Magnusson interrupts. Thomas Vorm is not a lawyer and he objects to the
question being asked.

Zenon: "If RTC is supposed to sue in its own name and that is sufficient,
why did CST sue Karin Spaink and twenty-two Internet providers in Holland
in 1995?"

Vorm: "I cannot say."

Zenon: "No further questions."

10:30 - End tape. Break.

10:51 - Third tape: the bailiff in Tingsrätt.

THE BAILIFF WAS responsible for the confiscation and searching of Zenon's
data, but did not carry out the search personally. She explains the method
that was employed, as described in her protocol. The bailiff searched
Zenon's data on his hard disk, floppies and zip drives, but was only able
to do so partially, because of encryption. The words that she was looking
for as per RTC's instructions, were the following: OT, NOT, NED, BT, Body
Thetan, vulcano, volcano, GPM, Ward, Vorlon. Zenon handed her a floppy
with the texts that were affected by the court's decision, which helped
her to retrieve some material from his hard disk and copy it to diskette.
A month later Zenon asked for a copy of the floppy he had handed in, and
then the bailiff confiscated it. That was the same floppy that had been in
the bailiff's possession all along, but it had not been formally
confiscated before.

11:00 - Fourth and last tape: Birgitta Alexandersson, notary public. Since
the original testimony was taped behind closed doors, part of the audience
is now asked to leave.

Tape: Zenon asks how she selected the 'works' within attachment 126 that
she then proceeded to compare to RTC's originals of OT2, OT3 and the NED
for OTs Pack (as she insists on calling the NOTs). She claims that she has
made a random selection.

The court listens to that statement. Then the tape is rewound and
fast-forwarded to another section of Alexandersson's testimony, in which
she again explains the procedure that she employed. And indeed again
Alexandersson claims that she made a random selection.

This is totally at odds with her testimony of yesterday: there, she
claimed that she started at the top of the stack of papers, and "since she
knew the material so well by then", she could "easily recognise what was

11:15 - End of tapes.

Discussion about damages and legal costs. Magnusson again enumerates the
instances in which Zenon infringed upon RTC's rights and states the
grounds for and the amount of damages that RTC claims:

- Payment for usage:  10,000 SEK
  the standard tariff being, according to the
  tariff of the Swedish Writer's Guild, 160,000
  SEK. In other words: RTC is being mild here. - Tort for material damage:  
10,000 SEK
  which includes their economical damage, money
  spent on guarding the material, loss of
  customers, market shares and license proceeds. - Immaterial damages:  
5,000 SEK
  loss of good name, hurt feelings etc.

Apart from that, RTC demands the destruction of any secret and
confidential material that Zenon has in his possession, has published or
has distributed.

11:30 - Lunch break

13:15 - Court resumes.

ZENON STATES HIS OBJECTIONS to the need to pay damages. One of his grounds
is freedom of speech and freedom of religion, based on the European
convention on human rights. Scientology is a cult that has been criminally
convicted in many Western countries, he explains; only next month a penal
case in Madrid will start in which Heber Jentzsch, the president of
Scientology, is one of the defendants.

In order to explain and assess what Scientology stands for, it is
necessary to have access to their material. Besides, this is a consumer's
right worthy to defend: you need to be able to understand what you get
into and what you pay for before you join *any* group.

The Chair warns Zenon that he is diverting from the subject of damages.

Zenon explains that there is a strong need for an open debate about
Scientology and its beliefs, and that this is sufficient reason to publish
their texts. Thus, damages should be waived under the provisions of the

Part of Scientology's claims should be rejected because Zenon is not
responsible for them. They hold him accountable for infringements that he
has not at all perpetrated, as for instance copies of OTs and NOTs made by
the courts, not by him. Part of the damage caused, as for instance loss of
revenue, is due to the bad quality of Hubbard's writing and not to Zenon's
actions as such. Furthermore, an author's right to compensation for
immaterial damage, i.e. his hurt feelings, is personal to him and does not
follow the copyrights. As for the legal fees that RTC demands (8 million
SEK) and what the primary court ruled that Zenon had to pay (1,2 million
SEK), there are important issues to be taken into account, that is, to be
subtracted from the bill. He will go into those later.

Regarding the injunction and the destruction order that RTC wishes to
impose upon him: not only does he dispute them, he also thinks they should
be specified to particular objects and to particular texts, and be limited
to apply only within Sweden. As things are now, the injunction is far too
wide and neither limited in scope nor in time.

Destruction orders must always be fully specified. Besides, Swedish
rulings can be enforced in the Netherlands. As things stand now, making a
copy of the scriptures for personal use is infringement in Sweden but not
in the Netherlands, where the courts have explicitly ruled that the
scriptures are published material. If the Swedish ruling is not limited to
apply within Sweden only, the Swedish court would be imposing its ruling
on another country against the rulings of the courts of that country. In a
country where a ruling is only enforced, it cannot be appealed.


A MORE DETAILED discussion of the legal fees as presented to the primary
court is conducted.

Magnusson right now drops two items from the bill: Bill Hart's legal fees
and his travelling costs for the primary case: 1,351,350 SEK, and 211,642
SEK respectively. RTC's bill for legal fees has just been reduced from 8
million SEK to 6,5 million SEK.

Zenon disputes various items on Magusson's bill:

- The legal fees: the political lobbying and the guarding of the OTs and
NOTs in parliament are on the legal bill. This is not correct; only what
is spent *within* a case itself can be charged in the case.

- RTC is charging fees for costs brought about by *other* cases, lawsuits
that branched off this one. You can't put those on *this* bill: for
instance, when RTC sued the court demanding secrecy, they can't expect
Zenon to foot the bill for that. It is simply not part of this case.

- The legal bill is terribly vague where it comes to specifications. None
of the costs on the bill can be checked.

- The charges are unreasonable, and Magnusson's fee is outrageous. If you
compare what he demands or states that he costs with what Ms.
Calissendorff, who for some time acted as Zenon's lawyer, was awarded by
the court, you can't but cringe.

- The legal bill is unduly burdened by unnecessary actions (from McShane's
affidavit and the translation thereof, to translations of a multitude of
US rulings and a flood of legal opinions offered; from travelling and any
number of hours worked for lawyers that didn't actually participate in the
case; Small's travelling expenses while he could easily have testified by
telephone, just like Vorm did; the amount of copies made and the price per
copy calculated; the handing in of evidence to prove things that Zenon
never questioned or denied; the consistent use of couriers instead of
faxes; the aide who has been sitting next to Magnusson for a week while
doing nothing much more than leafing through papers and occasionally
passing a note on to Magnusson. And let's not forget the ten binder set
that Magnusson presented everybody with at the beginning of this case:
there was nothing new in it, Magnusson just 're-ordered' his evidence, and
surely Z will be expected to pay for that as well.

In short, RTC and Magnusson have deliberately increased their costs and
are now pushing that bill unto Zenon. Equality of arms (viz. the European
Convention of Human Rights) is surely applicable in this aspect. In the
absence of a reasonable bill, RTC's legal costs must be reasonably
assessed *and* brought down proportionally according to what RTC has lost.


MAGNUSSON'S REPLY. It is obvious that Panoussis has done everything he
could to increase RTC's costs. On alt.religion.scientology, Zenon has in
various postings claimed that RTC, by imposing such a enormous sum upon
him, has in fact granted him immunity from future claims. And he is
actually challenging RTC in that posting - as he has done in other
postings - to sue him, while alternatively threatening to post more of
RTC's material.

Zenon's claim that equality of arms should be taken into account is
ridiculous. Actually, it amounts to discrimination: it means that the
strongest party can't spend more than the weaker party can afford.

Zenon replies that Magnusson's last remark about strong and weak parties
is of course nonsense. The strong party can spend whatever it wants; the
only question at stake is whether it can demand that the weaker party will
afterwards *bear* all these costs. He will save his other arguments for
his plea.

14:30 - Break.
14:50 - Court resumes.

MAGNUSSON IS GOING TO deposit McShane again. Zenon informs the court that
he would like to pose additional questions as well, and explains on what
subject: contrary to what he stated, there appears to be a part of NOTs
that people *do* study. Apart from that, it would appear from
Scientology's own publications that there are much more than just 325
Scientology members who have studied the NOTs, as McShane claimed: some
120 more at least. Does this evidence come from Scientology itself, the
Chair asks? Yes, Zenon explains, it comes from Scientology's own
publications: Source Magazine and International Scientology News, and
copies of those magazines arrive tomorrow. Zenon will provide Magnusson
with copies immediately.

Magnusson claims that this is not *at all* relevant, and besides, why are
we getting this at the latest moment imaginable?

Short discussion between Chair and Zenon. Zenon explains that NOTs are
courses with 'fixed donations' as well. The Chair wants to know since
when. It has always been like this, says Zenon.

15:05 - Deposition of McShane

WE KNOW THAT THIS new deposition has been put in to repair some of the
damage done previously, where McShane was forced to admit how many people
have read OT2 and OT3, and his admittance that people *pay* for those
courses. (Any commercial exploitation of a text is in itself sufficient to
constitute publication, and thus, under European law, gives every citizen
the right to possess copies for private use and allows everybody to quote
from it.)

Magnusson: How many copies has RTC itself produced of OT2, OT3 and NOTs?

McShane: Of OT2, RTC has produced about twenty packs for each of the
Advanced Churches. That is approximately a hundred copies in total. For
OT3 the numbers are a little bit higher, about thirty copies for each
Advanced Church. In case of the NOTs it is different, each of the Advanced
Churches only has four copies, except for the Advanced Church in Florida
that actually is the church that trains the NOTs ministers. They have
about seventy copies.

M: That means that all in all there are about a hundred copies of OT2,
hundred and fifty of OT3, and seventy or eighty of the NOTs?

McShane: Of the NOTs, that would be about eighty-six copies. Each of them
is part of the inventory, is numbered and is plugged into the computer.

M: ..

McShane: Yes, about [xx] years ago we translated the OTs and NOTs into the
four main languages: German, Spanish, French, Italian.

M: Are these translations part of the total amount of copies?

McShane: Yes, those numbers include the translations.

M: [assessing the degree of infringement as perpetrated by Zenon

McShane: I went through how much he infringed and [gets folder, opens it]

M: [can you give us the details?]

McShane: I compared the original work to the infringing copy. I did a word
count and determined how many words he took from the originals. For
instance, from OT2 he infringed upon 10 individual works and 4 of those
works are infringed upon 100%, one is infringed upon for 94%, one for 84%,
one for 75%, one for 62%, one for 20%, and the last one for 7%.

I did the same calculations for OT3. 15 works were infringed upon. 13 of
those for 100%, one for 66%, and the last one for 29 %.

I also did the same calculations for the NOTs. Of a total of 60 works 53
or 54 of the NOTs series and 4 other works were infringed upon. Just about
all of them were infringed 100% There were two, I would say for 99,99%
infringed upon, one for 91%, and there was a couple that was infringed
upon for 95 % and another 80%. But the majority was taken verbatim.

M: .. summarise .. sentences .. text ..

McShane: I don't follow the question

M: [Are there other texts among the infringements?]

McShane: no there are not.

M: The notary public, Alexandersson said that the distribution list of
NOTs 54 mentions "solo NOTs". Can you explain?

McShane: I testified that there was no Solo OT5. There *is* a course
called Solo NOTs, but the member or parishioner who does that course does
not study the NOTs himself, and although it says "NOTs Pack" on the cover,
there is no NOTs issue or NOTs course on OT6.

   [Comment: this ping-pong between Magnusson and
   McShane is the result of Zenon asking about
   Solo NOTs. Zenon had implied that the Solo NOTs
   - a course that has been done by plenty of
   Scientology members - are part of the NOTs
   pack. Here, McShane tries to refute that.]

M: [can you explain a bit more about the OT-levels]

McShane: Each of the OT-levels were based on research that Mr. Hubbard did
into the spiritual nature of man, in order to discover the means, the ways
of improving man's spiritual nature, all leading to the ultimate goal of
immortality. Each of the OT-levels are an expression of Mr. Hubbard's
writings, of what he discovered. And I know that it is hard to understand
what those writings mean without prior knowledge, but after my
twenty-seven years of being in the church, I'm very familiar with Mr.
Hubbard's writings and also from testifying in court cases, that each of
those individual works is an expression of what he discovered on those
particular subjects. I know that it is difficult for the courts to review
this material, because we are dealing with religious scriptures, but the
courses and the material contained within those courses impart to the
individual that reads them the revelations that Mr. Hubbard discovered;
and when you apply that material to yourself, you discover those

M: [Panoussis being wrong about whether any payment is expected for
studying the NOTs]

McShane: Yes, Zenon Panoussis has it totally wrong. OT5 and the NOTs are
only available to Scientology ministers and they do not pay for this
course. These are employees of the church and it is their training. They
do *not* pay for it.

M: [about the additional ministers who studied the NOTs Pack, over and
above the 325 ministers that McShane testified have read them]

McShane: My testimony was about the state of affairs at the beginning of
the trial at hand. I did not calculate any new ministers, but obviously
there have been additional people trained under the same circumstances.

M: [how many additional people have studied the NOTs?]

McShane: Maybe between 50 and 100 additional members. Again, these are
church members, they are staff, and they do not pay for this course.

15:27 - Zenon's turn.

Zenon: The percentages that you mention you have calculated pertain to
Exhibit 37? [That exhibit is what Zenon filed and what became public: it
contains the OTs from the Fishman Affidavit and the NOTs.]

McShane: Yes.

Z: Are these percentages based on calculations per word, or on the amount
of words?

McShane: I took your infringing copy and highlighted all the words and
then counted all the words that were the same.

Z: Did you count any instances of words in the wrong order as an

McShane: I found no instances of that.

Z: Do your calculations pertain to individual works or the whole

McShane: To individual works.

Z: With respect to the NOTs, you stated that sixty works were infringed
upon. Are these sixty works all parts of the NOTs pack?

[Some discussion ensues as to what is the NOTs pack.]

Z: The sixty works that were infringed upon, are they all part of the
binder that you showed here last Friday?

McShane: yes.

Z: What OT-level have you yourself attained?

McShane: OT6.

Z: That means that you only have personal knowledge about everything up to
and including OT6, but not of anything higher?

McShane: Yes.

Z: With respect to the ministers who study the NOTs: you say that they
don't pay for this course. But do they have to *donate*?

McShane: No.

Z: What is the official title of these ministers, their 'hat'?

McShane: Auditors.

Z: Ehm, I mean what *class* of auditors?

McShane: Class IX.

[Z gets up and borrows a Scientology glossy from the court that has been
filed as evidence; it contains a price list]

Z: Can you explain what it says here? "Class IX auditing rates - 9250 USD
for 12,5 hours".

McShane: That is what auditing *with them* costs.

Z: Is this what the auditors pay, or the auditees?

McShane: The auditees. The price refers to auditing rates for 12,5 hours.
So if your a parishioner and you want to do NOTs, that would be the
donation rate for 12,5 hours of auditing in Flag Clearwater, which is our
Advanced Church in Florida.

Z: Let me rephrase. The people who actually get to see and study the NOTs:
are they expected to pay any fixed donations?

McShane: No.

Z: In the magazines that are now on their way, Source Magazine issue 132
from 2000, and International Scientology News issue 9, 1999, it is claimed
that 57 and 60 new Class IX Auditors respectively are about to get their
grades. Is it probable that this many people have participated in NOTs
since the previous trial?

McShane: That is possible.

15:40 - McShane's deposition is done

Some discussion about the magazines that are on their way ensues. On
behalf of RTC, Magnusson admits that about 100 people have read the NOTs
after 1998. As a result, the magazines do not need to be filed as

Both parties' written evidence is then mentioned and noted - a procedural
necessity, brought about by the Swedish legal system that demands that all
arguments, grounds and evidence have to be presented verbally.

We are ready at 16:30, and pack our stuff. This time we need to take the
extra binders with us with us that Magnusson brought in at the first day.
Zenon had just left them in the court room so far; there was no point in
dragging them along. Besides, we couldn't carry them with us even if we
wanted; but fortunately, this time one of our supporters has shown up and
he will carry them for us. We take one of the cartons that Magnusson
brought them in and pack.

Only later we look at the box more closely. On the side, it says:

         Legal Source, Inc
         The Total Litigation Support Company

... based in California. "Total litigation support"? Duh. Do they deliver
jails, too?

Outside the court we have a much-needed smoke. The UK guy who approached
us yesterday is there waiting for us: yes, he went to visit the local
Scientology Org to get a second opinion *and* to fish for information
about his grandson. To his great surprise, just before he entered, he saw
the guy we had observed at the pub yesterday exit the Org…

We have a drink with our supporter. He gets to carry the extra carton. In
the pub, we notice a woman who is slightly out of place. She has seated
herself in such a way that she has an excellent view of us and she
'appears' to be reading a newspaper. Since we are tired of being followed,
we devise a trick to figure out what is going on. Zenon will leave, and we
will observe her.

Within thirty seconds of Zenon having exited the pub, the woman folds her
paper and leaves. Our supporter phones Zenon on his mobile: "She's getting
out of the door *now*." Our supporter and I continue talking, meanwhile
scrutinising the street. After six or eight minutes, we see the same woman
in the presence of a man passing the cafe, Zenon just behind them. He
points at them and mimics at us. Our supporter gets up and joins Zenon.

After a few minutes, Z and our supporter get back into the cafe. "The
street is swarming with Scientologists," Zenon exclaims. "I noticed at
least five," and he explains what happened. When he went out, he saw a guy
who was loitering and then slowly moved in the direction that Zenon was
taking, so then Zenon turned around a corner and stopped; he saw the guy
looking at him, pretending that he didn't, and then he exchanged glances
with another woman and wandered off, obviously having lost his purpose.
This second woman appeared lost when Zenon simply turned and walked back
to where he came from. Two guys were sitting in a parked car. On his way
back to the café, Zenon saw the woman from the café coming towards him.
The moment she noticed him, she turned around and walked back again,
walked past the café and stopped at the next shop window. Behind her was a
man, obviously unrelated to her, but he stopped at the shop window too and
started talking with the woman. Sure enough, Zenon was yet further behind,
so the man hadn't seen him.

Zenon continued past the café and reaches the two, overhearing part of the
woman's exited explanations to the man. Zenon stopped next to them at the
same shop window, whereby the man and the woman immediately departed in
the direction they had just came from.

At this point Zenon followed them past the café and stopped them. "Can we
stop these stupid little games NOW?" Zenon demande. "I don't know what you
are talking about," the woman mumbled. (The natural answer would of course
have been: "Games? What the fuck are you talking about? Who are you?")
Zenon scolded them severely and returned to the café.

When later all three of us get into a taxi, we are followed by a white
Volvo. When we stop to let off our supporter, the white Volvo stops behind
a parked bus. Our supporter takes them for a ride from there, while we,
just in case, make sure that they have to spend a few hours in the Swedish
cold if they manage to follow us.

Karin Spaink Stockholm, January 25 2001

- K -


Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to
others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what
you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
  - Lewis Carroll: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net